1920-06-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill 'No. 202 (from the Senate), for t-he relief of Lauretta Estelle 'Cook.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 203 (from the Senate), for the relief of Reginald Muir Barlow.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 204 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred John Crawford.

Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 205 (from the -Senate), for the relief of Frederick Minskip.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: I suppose the House
may assume that the statement made in the

press to-day by Mr. Murdock to the effect that he has sent to the Government his resignation as a member of the Board of Commerce, is correct, and that the letter which appears as addressed by Mr. Murdock to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is a copy of the letter actually sent to my right hon. friend. I would like to know if Mr. Murdock's letter is a correct copy of the communication which the Prime Minister has received, and., if so, whether my right hon. friend does not feel the matter of sufficient public, importance to justify the bringing down immediately of all the correspondence that has passed between the Government and the members of this board, so that Parliament may have an opportunity before prorogation of discussing the status of the board and matters incidental thereto.


Et. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I have not verified the communication which has been published in the press, but I assume that it is the same as that which I have deceived. Indeed, I have not had an opportunity of reading it except as it appeared in the press. A communication reached me from Mr. Murdock this morning which, doubtless, corresponds to that which has been published in the press. I should like to say that so far as certain conversations which I have had with Mr. Murdock are concerned, he is under a misapprehension-though his statement was made, I have no doubt, in all sincerity-as to what I intended to convey to him. I did not intend to suggest to him that the Government would wait until after the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before filling the vacancy on the 'board. On the contrary, I invited from him an expression of this view as to a suitable person to appoint when the resignation of Mr. O'Connor took effect. I did say to Mr. Murdock that the question of an appointment to the board was of so serious a character that I was afraid the Government would not until after prorogation be able to give it the attention which its importance undoubtedly deserved. Indeed, I went so far in conversation as to discuss the name of a gentleman whom Mr. Murdock suggested as suitable for appointment to the chairmanship. I stated my concurrence in his suggestion, but expressed doubts whether the gentleman in question would accept the chairmanship of the board. I have not had an opportunity of very careifully considering Mr. Murdock's letter or of replying to it. It is my intention to reply to it and to give to
my reply the same publicity that Mr. Murdock has given to his letter. Then, so far as the correspondence between the Board of Commerce and the 'Government is concerned, the greater part of it has already been laid upon the table of the House. The only thing that, to my knowledge, has so far been withheld is correspondence which Judge Robson insisted on regarding as absolutely private and which he thought ought not to be communicated to the public without his consent. My colleagues took that matter into consideration during my absence, and, for the time being, withheld the correspondence because of its alleged confidential character and because Judge Robson thought the correspondence might be misunderstood. Of course, he had his own version with regard to it. In view of the fact that Mr. Murdock has made public a portion of the' correspondence in question, I am inclined to accept the view which has been put forward by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the whole of the correspondence ought to be brought down and laid upon the table of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend also whether he will consent to arrange a time for the discussion of this matter in the House? I think the whole question of the Board of Commerce and the correspondence that has taken place has assumed a public significance which would seem to warrant a further open discussion of the matter in Parliament before we prorogue.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I do not know that there is necessity for making any special arrangement. The House must be moved into Committee of Supply on many occasions before we prorogue. If my hon. friend will indicate any day on which he would like to discuss the subject, we will move the House into Committee of Supply for the purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any time .after the correspondence is brought down-assuming that it will be brought down immediately-will be convenient.



MEMBERS' INDEMNITY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: I desire to call the attention of the House to an error of the press. I do not

often bring such a matter before the House; indeed, I have no recollection of ever before having done so. In the present instance the matter is not one of much importance, but I think it is well that the facts should be correctly stated. The press report of the debate on the indemnity question, referring to the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) states:
He (Mr Burnham) named several members, including the Hon. W. S. Fielding Dr. Michael Clark and Mr. Ernest Lapointe who, he said, were strongly In favour of the increase and were prepared to speak in favour of it had they been present in the House to-night.
I was not present when the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) began his speech-with the Prime Minister and several other members I was in attendance at a very important committee meeting. If I had been in the House and if the hon. member in my hearing had used such language it would have been my duty at once to challenge the statement and to say, as I say now, that neither to the hon. member for Peterborough West, nor to any other person did I express any such views as are here ascribed to me. I came into the House later during the debate, when the hon. member was just about resuming his seat. I participated in the debate; what I said is of record and, of course, for that I am responsible. But I am not willing to be held responsible for the statement so ascribed to me. Reference to Hansard, however, goes to show that the member for Peterborough West did not make the statement; on the contrary he is reported there to have said distinctly that he did not know my views and had never exchanged any words with me on the subject-which was quite correct. Now, if the matter were reported only in the local press I would not mention it, because local knowledge and reference to Hansard would explain the facts. But I find that this report has been telegraphed all over the Dominion, and thousands of people who will never see Hansand and never know the facts will read it. For that reason only, I have called attention to the matter. I am making no complaint, because I am quite sure that the error on the part of the reporter was accidental and was not meant to mislead anybody.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I be allowed to say that so far as I am concerned, my hon. friend from Peterborough West fairly and correctly interpreted my feelings.



CLASSIFICATION OF THE INSIDE SERVICE,

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. BENiRI 0EVERIN BELAND (Beauce): In the statement distributed amongst members of the House yesterday or the day before, showing the new classification of employees in several departments pf the public service, I fail to see the classification of the official personnel of the House of Commons, although the classification of the-personnel of the Senate is to be found therein. Was that an intentional omission, or are we to expect the list before the end of the session?
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Council):: As I explained when I laid the statement on the table of the House-
IMr. BELAND: I was not present, I am sorry.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -there were certain
branches of the public service in regard to which the application of the classification had not been completed, and therefore, they could not be properly included in that statement. While at the time I did not mention any particular branch of the service, I assumed that the House of Commons would be one of those; at least the Civil Service Commission had not received the classification of the House of Commons staff at the time the statement was sent to the printer. If it has since been completed or is now available, there is no reason in the world why it should not be printed and -aid on the Table. I mentioned at the time that the application o-f the classification in two or three departments or branches of the service will not be completed before the House rises, and, therefore, the Civil Government Estimates for them, will have to be on the basis of the existing classification.



HYDRO-ELECTRIC AND ONTARIO RADIAL RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIERRE FRANCOIS CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-iMontmoreney):: I would call
the attention of the Minister of Railways to a certain article which appeared yesterday in the Ottawa Journal under this heading: "Selling Ontario Radials to Hydro. Hon. J. D. Reid and Sir Adam Beck have conference." What was that conference, and is any new legislation to be brought

down following that conference regarding the sale of those railways?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: I would suggest, if the hon. member has any question to ask in connection with the railways, he should wait until a little later in the day when I shall he on my Estimates, and then I will be glad to give him any information.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: Is it true that the Grand Trunk is presently administered by the Board of Management of Canadian National railways, and if not, when may we expect this Board of Management to take charge of that railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk railway is being administered, as heretofore, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It will he administered by the Canadian National Railways after it is taken over finally, and that will be when the award has been made.



GOVERNMENT AID TO SHIPBUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 199, respecting the shipbuilding industry, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) for the third reading of Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act, resumed from June 24.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I happened not to be in the House a few days ago when this Bill'was being considered in Committee of the Whole. As this is a very important piece of legislation, I really feel that it has not been given the consideration and attention to which it is entitled. In my opinion, this Bill could very well have waited over until next session for the purpose of permitting public opinion to express itself upon this legislation and of giving to the Indians an opportunity to consider its provisions and to make themselves still more generally heard than they have had opportunity to*.
In reading Hansard, I notice that it was stated that the committee charged with considering this Bill was practically unanimous
in its findings and that it was almost a love feast. Indeed, the proceedings in committee were very harmonious; but I may say that the most important provision of the Bill, that as to compulsory enfranchisement, carried in committee by a strictly political party majority, if T may say so; all the members on this side of the House voting against that compulsion and hon. members opposite voting in favour of it As far as I am concerned, I am opposed to changing entirely and in a very arbitrary way the whole system which has been in force in the past as to the enfranchisement of the Indians. This system should be improved, but not in the way suggested by this Bill. It should be through an educational process. The Indians should be led to ask for their own enfranchisement, but should not be coerced, as they will be, if this Bill is passed. We heard before the special committee representatives of Indians from all over the country, and amongst them were men of exceptional ability, clergymen, professional men, returned officers and returned soldiers all of whom had the welfare of their race at heart, and they were strongly opposed to the compulsory feature of the present Bill. One or two men were ready to accept it, but these exceptions only served to confirm the general feeling. My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Bum-ham), discussing this Bill in committee the other day, said that there was no compulsion in the Bill, and that people were misled on that point. That only shows that my hon. friend did not read the Bill or the evidence. I shall only quote on that point the evidence of Mr. Scott, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and the man who knows best. At page 52 of the evidence, he says1:
It has been stated that the franchise provided for under this Bill is a compulsory franchise, and I have been asked the question whether that is so. I have been asked that question in the hope, apparently, that I would endeavour to conceal that fact, but it is a compulsory system, and I hope the committee will support it.	.
Now I want to give the House the opinion of two or three representative men among [DOT]the Indians. A young man appeared before the committee by the name of Moses, from Brantford, Ontario. He is a member of the league of Six Nations, a very clever young man, a graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College, and progressive in every way. He suggested many things that should be done. He spoke strongly against the present system prevailing in his tribe, and sug-

gested many improvements. Altogether he impressed the committee very favourably. As to this compulsory enfranchisement, he said that it was the worst thing that could happen.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Was this intelligent professional man liable to pay his debts?


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question altogether. I do not understand why my hon. friend should ask it at this stage.


Arthur Meighen: I will put it differently so that my hon. friend will understand it. He describes the witness as a very intelligent professional man, making his living, and presenting a strong case before the committee. Does my hon. friend think it right that a man of that standing and maturity should be exempt from liability for his civil obligations?


Ernest Lapointe: I will tell my hon. friend *later, if he will allow me. I might say that this young man Moses- said he was in favour of having this exemption from the payment of debts removed. I am not of the opinion of my hon. friend that this could only be done by enfranchising 'the Indians. Moses admitted that this exemption from the Day-ment of debts was a disadvantage to the Indians^


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member say that we can impose these civil obligations on an Indian, and not give him the civil right to the franchise?


Ernest Lapointe: I think so, and I shall refer to that later. Here is what Mr. Moses said:
Mr. Davidson : When, in your opinion, should the Indians he enfranchised?
Mr. Moses: That is a very hard question to answer. We would- place it this way ; give us an opportunity to prepare ourselves, let us have a meeting and bring these matters before our people and let them know what is going on. Let me try andi -make a point right here-my own father was a hard-working man, he started with nothing and he has reared a family of ten; we are all on that reserve at the present time. -He has worked hard and wihat he has made is -going to /be distributed among his family. But, gentlemen, if you call upon -him at the present time to become an enfranchised man, and to he taxed up for his fee, and everything else, it is Just simply impossible; he cannot do it, because he has never expected such a. thing; you -have never suggested it -to him and he has never thought of such a thing. If you give us to understand that this is going to come, from this time forward, I will go home and I will prepare myself and my family for that time when -we are going to become enfranchised- and that will be the -fair -British way of doing it. And any parents on that reserve, who have reared- their family of children, will be -placed out on the road If this Act goes into 
force in its present form. I claim that we ought to strike the happy -medium. I know -that our Council has opposed this department in everything.
The League of Indians of Canada, which is being formed by the best educated Indians, has passed a resolution which was presented to the special committee by a very able young man, a lieutenant of the Canadian army. One of the clauses of that resolution reads as follows:
The League of Indians of Canada as an association is not unalterably opposed to the principles of enfranchisement so long as it is based upon educative ideals and the proper training for the eventual assumption of the individual for the highest status of citizenship involving all its responsibilities. At the outset, the will and pleasure of the individual to assume the role and status should be based on the true principle of self-determination, but by no means or measures of coercion. Any intention of this order should be also by concurrence of a wife -if man is married-in order that separation divorce and estrangements may not be encouraged. Any such intention should be a matter the council or chiefs and band should be fully advised primarily.
Another gentleman, the Eev. Mr. Brigham said:
We do not want you to pass that in its present form. Place an Act, if you please, upon the statute books providing for the voluntary enfranchisement of the Indian so that his home would be conserved to him, and let it be beyond the scheming of mere politicians to get hold of the land under the provisions of this Act as it is now. Let the Indian he self-determining; he went to the war for that reason and why should we compel him to take a step that he doesn't, in his heart, believe he is ready for? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.
Many other Indians were heard, among them Mr. Picard from the Lorette reserve in the province of Quebec. He is a well educated Indian, and he spoke strongly against this Bill as being very dangerous in its application to the great majority of the Indians.
'Some of the members of the committee, especially those from the West, among them my hon. friend from -Skeena (Mr. Peck) and my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. -Stacey) spoke very strongly in favour of the Bill. My hon. friend from Skeena said that th [DOT] Indians of British Columbia were asking for enfranchisement.


Mr. PECK:: I stated that I thought they were in favour of enfranchisement.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the very words of my hon. friend; they will be found in Hansard. And Mr. Scott is reported as follows: The man who is responsible for this Bill says:
JUNE 25, mo
It will be many years before this Bill will apply to the Indians in the West, although I have a petition from the Moshelle tribe to be enfranchised.
Mr. Scott intimated to us that in all the provinces, except in some parts of Quebec and Ontario, there is at present no Indian fit for enfranchisement and that the department, until many years have elapsed, will not recommend the enfranchisement of Indians in any of the western provinces. It is particularly for certain parts of Quebec and Ontario, according to Mr. Scott, that the legislation is being passed this session. I took the trouble to ask the superintendent as to the Indians of St. Frangois near Montreal, the Abenakis, and the Mickmacks of Lorette, and he said that these men were ready to be enfranchised. I have had numerous letters from the Bishop of Nicolette beseeching Parliament not to pass this Act and not to force the Indians of these reserves to become enfranchised. He declares that if we did so we would make tramps of many of those men who are living there in perfect harmony in community. They are still children in the broadest sense oif the word and should not be enfranchised against their will, as they will be if this Bill passes. The same position is taken by the missionaries, who have much to do with these Indians, and I cannot see why the 'Government should insist on adopting this Bill. Why not continue the policy of the department and improve that policy, making it easier for the Indians, who are desirous to be enfranchised, to secure enfranchisement? I think the statistics that have been quoted by Mr. Scott, and in this House the other day, show that this is the proper way of proceeding in the matter. Under the old law, in order to get enfranchisement an Indian had to apply to the superintendent. The superintendent of Indian Affairs referred his application to the agent of the department on the reserve, and he referred it to the council of the band. A certificate of probation was given to the man and three years after he could be enfranchised. Under that system, Mr. Scoitit says, the result has been that since Confederation we have been able to enfranchise only about 150 individuals; and Mir. Scott continues:
It is a crying shame that people should not be able to be enfranchised immediately when they desire to do so. During 1907 I recommended to the minister that any Indians who have any land located on the reserve may apply for enfranchisement and become immediately enfranchised if they have the proper qualifications. Since the passage of that Aot and 'it has been in operation less than two years, we have enfranchised nearly 300 individuals. That shows
that there is a class which that amendment certainly reaohes, and that they are men who are willing and anxious to take their places as Canadian citizens.
This show's something else, Mr. Speaker. It shows that as soon as better facilities were given 300 men-that is to say, 200 persons more than the whole number since Confederation-have been enfranchised during the past two years. Well, remove other barriers. This amendment applied only to men who were not living on the reserve. Make it applicable to all Indians on the reserve or out of it who want to be enfranchised, and educate them up to the standard of enfranchisement; make them capable of enjoying full citizenship, and these men will ask for enfranchisement when they are prepared for it. If you pass this Bill as it is you leave a sense of wrong in their hearts. They all feel from one end of the country to the other that they are not treated fairly and properly and that they are coerced into something which is not forced upon other people. Citizenship is not forced upon any man in any land, and they will feeil that they are antagonized; they will feel that they are injured and results will be far more detrimental than if this Bill had not passed. I say that we should proceed in this matter by means olf education and persuasion and not by force and coercion; and we should not leave it to the will or the whim of any officer of a department of Government to determine that this man or that man or any number of men shall be enfranchised and given the privileges of citizenship which they are not ready to enjoy or which they do not Want.
As to the other provisions of the Bill- the educational clauses-I must say that at the outset I was inclined to be opposed to them. But having heard what was stated before the committee, and having received communications from various bodies and gentlemen who know about the Indians, I am now rather disposed to favour the new clauses concerning education. And I would ask the Government to confine the Bill to the educational clauses and strike out the clauses providing for compulsory enfranchisement. I would ask the Government to amend the Indian law in such a manner as to make enfranchisement of the Indians easier to those who want it and are ready for it, but not to proceed with this legislation as it is. The only argument that has been advanced is the one put forth by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior: Is it fair that men who are enjoying all the privileges of citizenship, or who are ready to be full citizens, earning

their living among other people, should be exempt from paying their debts? Well, I say that the provision which forbids the attachment of the lands of Indians should be conserved and maintained; hut the salaries of Indians who work in factories or anywhere else should be liable to seizure the same as the salary of any other man, and this can be done under the provincial law and it can be done under this law, with a proper amendment to the Indian Act. There is no other argument, no other reason which has been set forth, in favour of this measure and I will certainly vote against the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee it is proper that I should add a word or two to what I said when the Bill was before the Committee of the Whole House. On that occasion I did not refer to one or two outstanding features in connection with the investigation we had and I should like to place these on Hansard. Perhaps the most pleasant feature during the seventeen or eighteen days' sittings we had was that, without one single exception, every Indian who appeared before us expressed the utmost confidence in the department.


Thomas Hay: Did you have any representatives of the Indian bands of the province of Manitoba at that conference or were they officially invited to be there?


William Alves Boys: I do not recall one from Manitoba.


Thomas Hay: Did you have any from Saskatchewan?


William Alves Boys: I do not recall that. I did not take the trouble to find out exactly where all the Indians came from. They appeared and we listened to what they had to say but the question was not one affecting the Indians of Saskatchewan, or Manitoba or Alberta; it was a question affecting the Indians of the Dominion of Canada. I want to proceed with what I was about to say: that without one single exception every Indian who appeared before us expressed the utmost confidence in the department and particularly in the Deputy Superintendent General, Mr. Scott. Many went so far as to say that it practically mattered not what law was passed by this Parliament, so long as he was in charge they would be perfectly satisfied. Some expressed the fear that in the future, as he could not live forever, some one might be there who would not be as satisfactory to

them. I would ask the House to consider the fact that the Indians expressed the utmost confidence in and satisfaction with the administration as it has been carried on. I knew practically little of the Indian question except in a general way, as there are no Indians in my part of the world, and I was very glad to hear them say that in the committee.
The Indians who appeared before us were a highly capable lot of men. I do not think I ever heard a better or more impassioned address of eight or ten minutes than that which was delivered by one of these Indian representatives. Eight or ten of them addressed us, and in the language used and dramatic force displayed would do credit to any member of the House of Commons.
The question that at once arose was that in connection with the law regarding the enfranchisement of Indians. The House will know that in connection with the Bill this was tire main feature that we were called upon to discuss at that conference. Everything else seemed to be satisfactory. The assertion of one of the Indians present was that the law did not matter. If any hon. member will take the trouble to look up the Indian Act, sections 108-112, and see the process that has to be gone through for Indians who require enfranchisement he will at once come to the conclusion that the existing law should be amended. I think I should just shortly state what the procedure is. An Indian has to make application for his certificate, then he must go before a priest, clergyman, stipendiary magistrate or some other like official and make oath, then he must present this statement to the council, thirty days elapse for affidavits to be filed, the certificate is then forwarded, if satisfactory, to the Superintendent General, an examination and, later, approval take place and then a location ticket is issued. The Indian has to wait for a period of three years', no matter how fit he is, no matter how keen he is for enfranchisement, before he can secure it. I would appeal to the hon. member for Quebee East (Mr. Lapointe) and I would ask him: Does he think any one of the Indians that he saw at the committee should have to go through all that and wait for over three years before he can secure enfranchisement?


Ernest Lapointe: No; I am in favour of amending the law.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend spoke of a young man who desired to advance but who

was not ready for enfranchisement. If there was anything in that the provision of this Bill would meet the case. My hon. friend was afraid that enfranchisement might be enforced upon the Indian and if that were the case there might be something in the argument. There is no such thought Before that young man can be enfranchised the safeguards that it is proposed by this Bill to surround him with would have to be observed and only if he is found fit is he enfranchised. On the other hand, if such Indian should not be found fit, he is not immediately enfranchised and he is not enfranchised against his will. But if he wants to he should be able to secure immediate enfranchisement, and he should not have to go through the cumbersome and dilatory process to which I have - referred.
Another question arises as to whether or not an Indian should be enfranchised against his will. My hon. friend sitting beside me says that I should mention that he would not be enfranchised until the lapse of two years. I think that was made clear when this matter was discussed the other day but that is the fact. No man is enfranchised against his will short of two years. Bet us admit that we have men of the type that I referred to as having appeared before the committee. They are certainly fit for enfranchisement and capable in every way of undertaking important Work. In some of the industries in the cities of this country Indians aTe earning from $6 to $10 a day and I am told that some of these Indians, and it is to their credit, are expert workmen and the best riveters we have in the country. They can climb to great heights without dizziness and do other work of a similar nature. You have such a man and, if he lives on a reserve, does not want enfranchisement, the question arises: whether he wants it or does not want it, if he is making money with the White man, should he be compelled? It is not a question of his voting; it is a question of his responsibility and rights of citizenship. As far as I am concerned, that is all I care about. You have such a man and he will not make application. Should he then be enfranchised? I think he should. The hon. member for Quebec East says: you do not enfranchise anybody else against his will. That is not correct. What about a young man of the white race; no matter what his mentality may be, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he is enfranchised. There are many young men who are not as fit to he
enfranchised as many of the Indians in this country. I was tremendously surprised at the grasp and intelligence shown by the Indians who appeared before us. It was not one or two but it was thirty of them. There were only one or two exceptions one being in the case of a feeble old chief of perhaps ninety years of age and one or two others who were probably not in the class to which I have referred. I think every member of the committee will agree that with the exception of two or three they were about the most capable men you could meet, they were far above the average. These men should have the franchise if they will not themselves ask for it.
Let us look at one or two of the protections surrounding the Indian. Again, may I ask are the Indians of this country forever to be the wards of the Government? What is to be the policy of the department? Is it that that status should continue forever, or should our policy, if possible, be one of getting the Indians to accept as soon as possible and as soon as fit, the duties, rights and responsibilities of citizenship? The latter is the policy of the department and I think every member of this House will agree that should be its policy. At present what is the position of the Indians? As to that I am only going to quote from two sections of the Indian Act. I want first to quote section 102 which reads as follows:
No person shall take any security or otherwise obtain any lien or charge, whether by mortgage, judgment or otherwise, upon real or personal property of any Indian or non-treaty Indian, except on real or personal property subject to taxation under the last three preceding sections: Provided that any person selling any article to an Indian or non-treaty Indian may take security on such article for any part of the price thereof which is unpaid.
Now what does that mean? We will take the case, for the purpose of illustration, of an agricultural implement. An Indian in any part of this Dominion and a good business man-and there are lots of them-[DOT] is operating a farm. He purchases, we will say, a bindeT and the usual lien note is given. He does not pay it. It is true that the binder may be re-possessed but later on when perhaps it is not worth 25 per cent of what he paid for it. The Indian does not pay it, but the right to 6ue for that which he justly owes is lacking the person to whom he owes it. Should that be so in the case of an Indian who is a capable and good business man? Now take subsection 4 of section 195 which reads as follows:

Every such sale, barter, exchange or gift shall be null and void unless such sale, barter, exchange or gift is made with the written assent of the Superintendent General or his agent.	*
Again I ask the House to consider the case of an Indian who is a good business man, and. there are lots of them. He cannot engage in barter, isale or exchange without writing to Ottawa and getting the assent of the Superintendent General. Should that be so in the case of a capable business man? Is there anything to be gained by surrounding such an Indian with protection of that kind? And I might go on and read the rest of these sections to support my argument.
I want to say this further: I do not think it is fair to call this compulsory enfranchisement. That, in its full meaning, I think would convey the thought that you are going to take every Indian and enfranchise him whether he wants to be or whether he does not. That is not so. But where there is one who is known to the department to ibe fit, the proceedings outlined are taken: A board appointed by the Indian Department acts, and one Indian from the hand in question. They investigate the case and if they find he is fit for enfranchisement they so report. Here also the Indian is surrounded with the protection of the Superintendent General and the Deputy Superintendent General in whom the Indians have such confidence, arid if after that investigation it is found that the Indian is fit an order is made for his enfranchisement. But that order is not effective for two years unless the Indian himself asks for enfranchisement, after that investigation; and of course the Indian himself can start the proceedings for enfranchisement apart entirely from the board. So there is the two-fold feature: The Indian wanting enfranchisement gets it and gets it quickly. If he does not want it, and the department are of the opinion-having taken advice upon the matter-that he is a fit subject for enfranchisement, the proceedings I am mentioning are then taken, but even then he is not enfranchised for a period of two years. If there is any abuse -and there is nothing to warrant any hon. member suggesting for one moment from past experience (and that is after all perhaps the best guide) that there will be any abuse, then there is the two-year period during which reports can be made to this House and a committee in the future will have ample time to deal with it and set

matters right if any injustice is done. If the Indian does not understand the Act and thinks its purpose is to take hold of every Indian, as it were by the throat, and enfranchise him, regardless of existing conditions, I can well understand him objecting, but if, on the other hand, the question is viewed in the light in which I think it should be viewed and in accordance, to some extent at all events, with the suggestions I have made-which are borne out by the Bill-I cannot conceive of any injustice being done to any Indian. Bather is it the hope of the department, and it is my expectation-from the evidence of the various witnesses including the Deputy Superintendent General-that this is a step in the right direction, one leading to the ultimate goal which every one of the Indians seeks, viz., as fast as possible to take his place in this country with the white man and to get away from the guardian and ward feature which they all admit is obnoxious.
We found this further distinct proposition with respect to them, and I will close by stating ilt although I might say a good deal more: Among the old chiefs who appeared before us the objection ito the Bill seemed to be stronger than on the paid of the younger men. Take the young fellows- some of whom bad served overseas, Splendid types of young men-(there were no less than three hundred of them from the Six Nations of Brantford alone, 'and some of them appeared before us). These younger men seemed to want to move more quickly along (these lines than the older chiefs; they want the system of elections changed. I am not. absolutely familiar with the present system but, as I understand it, they have some regulations of their own wbereby^the squaws select the chief. The younger Indians seemed to think that method should be a thing of the past and that the Indians themselves should have the opportunity of saying whom they wianf to preside in their councils. The committee have made a recommendation to the department that the views of the bands who expressed that wish should be taken by vote and if 'the majority vote favours it that the elective system, rather than the present system, should be put into force.
I trust the members of the House will accept the report of the committee-which is absolutely in accordance with the wishes of the department and the experience of the Deputy Superintendent General and those best qualified, I think, to judge-and that the Bill will receive its third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is unnecessary to add anything at this stage of the debate to what has been so exceptionally well said by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who has served on this committee from the start and has followed the proceedings with great care. As the hon. member pointed out, the committee were far from unanimous in their approval of certain features of this Bill. There were certain features which the committee were prepared to recommend, and had the committee been agreeable to recommending wihat the members were unanimous upon, of course there would be no hesitancy in accepting this Bill at the present time. But it appears that the Government has made up its mind to ignore altogether a very important division of opinion on what is an outstanding feature of the Bill, viz., this question of enfranchisement; and I think it would be most unwise for this Parliament to treat in any light way either the question of citizenship and how it is to be obtained in this country, or the question of the rights of Indians who are considered wards of the Crown and equally wards of this Parliament. There is no doubt that some of the members of the committee-in fact all the members of it from this side of the House-are of the opinion that the present Bill does mean compulsory enfranchisement. Anything in the nature of compulsion-at this particular time of all times-is objectionable, and it is doubly objectionable when it bears any . relation to citizenship. For that reason. Mr. Speaker, even were there no other, I feel that if the Government is unwilling to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec East that only such features of the Bill be passed as were unanimously accepted by the committee, I would move;
That the Bill he not now read a third time, hut that it be read a third time this day, six months.


Mr. ROIBB:: It is my duty to inquire
through you, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) whether he was in the Chamber and heard the motion put to. the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon.
member for Springfield, in view of the point raised by the hon. member for Chat-eauguay-iHuntingdon (Mr. Robb), if the hon. member was present and heard the question put.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Mr. Speaker, I was not present when the motion. was put to the House. I said to my hon. friend the member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) as I came in: "I am afraid I am late," but he informed me that under a ruling given two or three days ago, it would be all right for me to vote. I assume my vote was not counted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must instruct that the vote of the hon. member be erased.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, owing to an agreement between the Hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Burrell) unavoidably absent, and myself, I did not cast my vote; had 1 voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. AROHAMBAULT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, owing to an .agreement between the Hon. Minister of Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is absent, and myself, I did not vote; had I voted I would have voted for the.amendment.


Mr. MANION:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McCURDY:: I was paired with the
member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to on the same division reversed, and Bill read the third time and passed.



WAR LOANS-AUTHORIZATION OF OVER-SUBSCRIPTIONIS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the raising by way of loan of any sums which may have been raised in excess of the amount authorized by The Demobilization Appropriation Act. 1919, shall be deemed to have been duly authorized thereby.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The object of
the resolution is to validate borrowings that have already taken place. We are providing for no loans this year. The various issues of the war loans and Victory loans were, as hon. members know, oversubscribed. The purpose of this legislation is simply to validate those over-subscriptions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have any of
the over-subscriptions been expended or cut into by the Government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There has been no over-expenditure; that is, there has been no expenditure of money, the raising of which was unauthorized by Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend a
statement of the extent of the borrowing powers which were conferred and how far they were exceeded?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The total
amount authorized was $1,750,000,000. The actual amount of subscriptions received was $2,050,570,100.17. The over-borrowing, therefore,-this is a clean-up of the whole period-amounted to $300,570,160.17.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend speaks of cleaning up over-borrowings for the whole period. If there were any over-borrowings up to last session we certainly cleaned them up then; we have not now to do any cleaning up. We should be asked now only to authorize over-borrowings during last year. I did not think in the past there were any such matters that were not thoroughly disposed of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When I stated that that cleaned up the whole period, I was giving the committee the total amount. The officials of the department tell me this whole amount of $300,000,000 is in respect of over-subscriptions of the Victory Loan of 1919, but the figures I gave cover the whole period.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend does not designate any specific sum in his resolution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, there is no sum designated.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it not usual, whenever we authorize a borrowing measure, that a specific sum is mentioned? It seems to me that my hon. friend should ascertain what his excess borrowings were and take authority for that amount, specifying the sum. I think he will find that is the experience in the past. To authorize and legalize a general borrowing power without specifying the amount in the Act itself, is open to some objection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This Bill was
prepared by the department, so far as I know in accordance with their usual practice, and it does not mention any specific amount; it merely validates excess subscriptions. If my hon. friend thinks the amount should be stated, and if we find that there is no objection to that, I have not the slightest objection to specifying the amount.


William Stevens Fielding: We are only in the resolution stage, the first stage, and I would suggest that the minister specify the sum, putting it in the preamble or not, as he chooses. He would have to say something like this:	"Whereas certain sums weie
authorized and further sums were obtained, this"-specifying the sum-"is authorized and approved." We might let the resolution pass with the understanding that when the minister brings in his Bill he will specify the sum. I realize that we have to provide for this, but it is just as well to do the thing in the usual manner, specifying the 266J
sum, because I cannot recollect any borrowing power being granted without the sum being designated. I would suggest the hon. gentleman do not introduce the Bill until he has had time to look into the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend will not object to having the Bill read the first time in order to advance it a stage, and I will undertake to look into the matter in the meantime and see what I can do.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Thereupon, Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 211, to confirm certain borrowings under the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital.___
Canadian Government Railways, construction and betterments (to be expended under the direction of and upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may from time to time provide), $6,321,194.
Mr. CAHILL:: Some two months ago the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) made a statement to the House of the earnings and management of the road, and he afterwards brought in the report of the Canadian Northern Railway, but he did not bring down any further information with regard to the Canadian National railways. The minister at that time- informed the House that for -the period there would be a deficit of something like $47,000,000 on the then existing railways, and the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in a statement made later on, informed the House that there would be "to cover advance for the purpose above-mentioned" an approximate amount of $28,000,000 required, that is a probable advance to the Grand Trunk railway, making in all a matter of seventy-five million dollars. A matter involving seventydive million dollars of an expenditure by the Dominion of Canada to cover a deficit in the management of the railways is a matter of considerable importance. Railways are just as necessary to the development of a country as are its highways and, therefore, railways are something that we must have. Railways, by the nature of their undertaking, must have special privileges from the Government of the country. They receive the

right of eminent domain; they have the privilege of taking land from a private owner without his consent by paying him for it. Therefore, they must, in the interest of the public, be regulated, and the system adopted by the former Laurier Government was much superior to the one under which we are operating to-day-They found that the railways should be regulated, and they appointed a Kailway Commission for that purpose, the regulation applying to the railways and other phases of the railway life of this country. To my mind, private ownership with public control is the proper system. Perhaps the Railway Commission could have had their powers extended so as to include location of railways as well as the control of freight rates, etc., which they have at present. If they had (sufficient power to determine where railways are to be located before charters or locations .are sanctioned by this Parliament, we would, in all probability, save .much duplication. But they have not had that power and the result has been that we have had some duplication. Many hon. members opposite, including members of the Government, have argued that we have overbuilt the railways of this country; that we have too many railways'. I .am not prepared to .agree with that statement. There is no question but that we have too much mileage for the present population, but we have not nearly enough mileage for the territory that should be developed in this country. During the development period of a .country, railways will, in .all probability. be built a little in advance of the requirements of the diay, that .all depending on the viewpoint of the Government of the day. If- the Government have visions of a great future for this country, they are altogether (likely to encourage railway construction and development. A wise government- would follow up railway construction with .an aggressive colonization policy. As you construct the railways, you bring into the country a great number of men to work on construction. It is well known that railway construction attracts immigration from foreign countries, juat as the building of a city attracts people. When you start to build a city- houses, sewers, waterworks, pavements, sidewalks, and all the other things that go ta make up a city-there is a great demand for labour, and men come there to work. That of itself makes a demand for more houses. But as soon as you get one house too many built and construction stops, 	, '
there is bound to be a reaction. The same is true of railway construction. A.s soon as you reach the point where construction stops, the men who were employed in that construction are going to find other employment or leave the country. It is at such a period that the Government would be well advised to turn their attention entirely to colonization and the development of the country's resources-timber, mineral, fisheries and agricultural resources. Our railways should have been so laid out as to accommodate the greatest number, first, of agriculturists, and then of other classes. I have no hesitation in saying that the Laurier Government did not adept a wise policy of homesteading. I do not think it is wise to allow the promiscuous settlement of homesteads all over a great country. 1 think the Government should have opened up blocks of land on which homesteaders could settle, and should have built railways to that settlement, instead of allowing, people to go all over the country hundreds of miles from a railway in some cases, and then come knocking at the door of Parliament for railway accommodation. It simply means that you are constructing too much mileage for the amount of land actually settled. The Conservative Government when they came into power apparently overlooked entirely a policy of colonization and the development of the lands along the lines of railway in order to produce traffic for the roads. Had they turned their attention to such a policy, we might not have had the condition we have to-day. However, they saw fit to adopt a different policy, and they allowed railway conditions to get into such a muddle that they, at least, thought that the only way out was to take over certain railways. Their method of taking over those railways was a very extravagant one. I think they paid entirely too much for them, and the records of the Government will show that. They paid for the Canadian Northern at least $140,000,000 more than ever was spent by the Canadian Northern people in the construction of the road. That is .shown by the Drayton-Ac-worth report and by the evidence given before the Board of Arbitration. However, when they had taken over these railways, one would naturally expect that the Government would have a policy for the railways under public ownership-a policy governing future construction, the method of management, and what should be done in the matter of freight rates when the earninge of the road were not equal to their

operating expenses. But apparently the Government have no policy. The manager of the railway, if he is oorretly reported, was going round the country less than six months ago stating that the Canadian -National railways would be an asset to the country and would help to pay off our huge debt, but when the minister presented his report we found that the manager was $47,000,000 short on his earnings, to say nothing of the roads being able to relieve the burden of debt that ie now on the country.
The railway situation to-day resolves itself purely into a question of management. What sort of management are we going to adopt? The Government told us two years ago, when they took over the Canadian Northern, that the Government roads were to be taken out of politics. That statement on the face of it should have convinced any thinking member of the House that the Government had given very little serious thought to the matter, because, as was pointed out from this side of the House, it is impossible to take Government-owned roads out of politics under the political system we have in this country. The minister, however, told uis that the roads would be taken entirely out of politics, and that he was going to look out for a board of directors to manage the roads in the best interests of the people. The Minister of Railways selected his board of directors. He is absolutely responsible for the selection of every director on the Canadian Northern and the Canadian National railways. Among all the directors he selected there was not one. railway man. If my hon. friend was going to run a grocery store I cannot conceive of his hiring a blacksmith to run it, because he would know it would be impossible for a blacksmith to run it successfully. But when it came to the bigger question of running the railways, he seemed to think a grocery man was capable of running the roads, and so he has hired grocery men, iron founders, and other men of that kind to undertake the management of the railway and act as a Board of Directors who will be responsible to the people. Not only that, but he saddled on the railway system the man who had made a failure of the management of the Canadian Northern, which failure made it necessary for the Government to take over that road. The man who had managed the roads and said he could make them pay was the man -who was taken over as the manager. I question very much if that management was
not already settled before the Board of Directors was selected. I think if hon. members will look at the evidence given before the Arbitration Board, they will find it was understood at that time that the present management was to be the management of the Canadian National railways. The directors were taken in afterwards, with instructions, I have no doubt, that all they were to do was to sanction what the management would say to them, and let it go at that. The management, to my mind, is not good. It has several weak spots, and one of the weak spots is that the manager is too closely connected with the old Mackenzie and Mann interests. The people of this country have no confidence in the Mackenzie and Mann crowd. They have no confidence in people connected with that crowd managing the railways of Canada in the interests of the people of Canada. I pointed out to my hon. friend the other day that the manager of the Canadian National railways, Mr. Hanna, was president of the Townsite Company along the -Canadian Northern, the Townsite Company having retained something like $20,000,000 worth of property in the townsites along the line of railway. I accused the minister last year of allowing his management to transfer the equipment of terminals from one point to another for the benefit of the real estate company which own the town- , site at that time. The minister said his information was that Mr. Hanna never owned a lot in Western Canada. Now I took the trouble to go down to the office of the Secretary of State and find out Who were the owners of the -Canadian Northern Townsite Company, and I found that Mr. Hanna was president of the company. Mr. Hanna said that there were bonds issued against this company, and that was why he was president. I find by sessional paper No. 195, Tuesday, April 15, 1919, Canadian Northern Arbitration, page 750, volume 2, that Mr. Tilley in cross-examining Mr. Hanna on Tuesday, February 12,	1918,
asked him this question:
Q. Mr. Tilley. There were certain townsites out in that district

Canadian Northern town-sites are they?
A. Mr. Hanna. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Tilley. Mackenzie, Mann and Co. townsites ?
A. Mr. Hanna. Owned by the Canadian Northern Town Property Co.
Q. Mr. Tilley. And is the stock of that company owned by the Railway?
A. Mr. Hanna. It is owned by Mackenzie, Mann and Co.
I hope the minister will take time to investigate the question of the townsites.

Here, according to the evidence of Mr. Hanna under oath, are townsites owned by Mackenzie and Mann.
According to the evidence in the Secretary of State's Department Mr. Hanna is president of this company, and he apparently is still working for the Mackenzie and Mann crowd. My information is that he has been using the railway for the benefit of the townsites rather than for the successful operation of the road. I want to draw the attention of the committee to some things which it seems to me should be placed before them so that the matter may be adjusted by the department, if they will do so. The people of the country, whenever you meet them on the streets or on the railways, show dissatisfaction. They do . not believe that the railways are being properly run, and they naturally ask why. I may read to the committee the following statement:	I notice in Investment Items
Supplement, Eoyal Securities, Limited, Montreal, April 30th, 1920, page 2, under the heading:-
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company prosperous.
The company has recently been awarded orders for approximately $3,000,000 of cars for the Canadian National Railways.
I understand that Colonel Thomas Cant-ley is a director and chairman of the board of Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company and he is also a director of the Canadian National Eailways. There may not be anything wrong about it; it may be absolutely all right. But it does seem strange that the Canadian National Eailways should take as their directors men who are selling supplies to the railway. It seems unreasonable that the Government should be unable to get directors who are railway men and who are not interested in any private undertaking whereby they stand to benefit by selling supplies to the Canadian National Eailways. This is a matter in regard to which all suspicion should be entirely removed from the public mind. We should get the best railway men possible as directors and managers of ithe railways, and the Government should give the railways a fair chance. Hon. members last year and the year before said that I was opposed to public ownership. Public ownership does not enter .into the question, but what I said then was that I feared that public ownership would get a black eye if there was not better management than the minister was proposing to institute, and the facts have justified that fear. The railfMr. Cahill.]
ways have not been managed in the interests of the people; the management has not been in the interest of public ownership. I asked the minister last year for the names of the subsidiary companies connected with the Canadian Northern Eailways. I was unable to get that information from him. There are quite a number of these companies that are controlled and listed in the annual report for 1919 as acquired security. I wanted to know from the minister what the liabilities and assets of the total undertaking of the Canadian Northern Eailway amounted to, and what the total assets and liabilities of the Canadian National Eailways represented. In other words, I wanted a business statement of just what we were . receiving and what the liabilities were. I requested a statement in regard to the subsidiary companies but it was not given to me. Now, I desire this information, because in these undertakings we apparently are partners with a great number of people. I want to know who our partners are. Take the Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific railway, and what is the.situation? The Canadian Northern and the Government own fifty-one per cent of the stock. Apparently it is a profitable railway. Who owns the other stock? I find this in the evidence given at Toronto on April 15, 1919:
Q. Mr. Butler:	That is the Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific?-A. Mr. Hanna:	Yes:	it
earns as much as the Canadian Pacific Railway in one of its last reports.
Q. Sir William Meredith:	Are the operating
expenses greater on that proportionately?-A. Mr. Hanna No, this road earns fixed charges and earned a very fair rate on the dollar of common stock.
Q. Sir Wiliam Meredith:	The company does
not own more than 51 per cent of the stock, does it?-A. Mr. Hanna:	Mackenzie, Mann
and Co. own the other forty-nine.
Again we have Mackenzie and Mann apparently holding profitable portions of this whole undertaking. They have retained the valuable timber limits and the valuable townsites; they have retained all. other valuable subsidiaries of the undertaking and have allowed the Government to take over the most unprofitable portions. Now, a railroad cannot possibly make any progress under arrangements of that- kind. In the first place the bargain was bad. Too much money was paid for the road, and we did not get the assets of the road The Mackenzie and Mann interests were allowed to retain the most profitable parts of the assets, but we had to take over the whole management, lock, stock and barrel, of a concern that was not able to pay half its way, while they had all the assets of

the Canadian Northern; and now the Government is using more money to manage the unprofitable portion. The Toronto Globe some weeks ago, after the minister had made his statement, pointed out as a reason why the railroad had to meet a large deficit this year that they had spent so much money on maintenance of way and equipment. That was one of the reasons why there was a large deficit. Now, if they had spent as much money in maintenance of way and equipment as the Canadian Pacific Railway spent during the same period, their loss would have been $10,000,000 more. The Canadian Pacific Railway paid out $844,000 per mile more in maintenance of w>ay and equipment than the Canadian National Railways.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. member say $800,000 per mile?


Frank S. Cahill: 'I meant to say $844 per mile.


John Dowsley Reid: That is different.


Frank S. Cahill: If we had spent on maintenance on the same basis as the Canadian Pacific Railway we would have had an additional loss of over $10,000,000. After all, you must maintain your equipment as well as your railways, and the equipment when the Government took over the road was very much less than it was reported by the Canadian Northern people. I do not think any one will deny that fact. It was considerably less. They had a lot of old junk stock lying on the sidings and the company turned that over to the Government as rolling stock. As a matter of fact it was not rolling stock but simply junk. When my hon. friend took over this railway he found that he was short of equipment, and instead of coming to the House and frankly saying that" he had only so many cars and so much equipment he gave us a statement of equipment as reported by the Canadian Northern and he started from that basis. When he asked for an unlimited cheque to buy equipment and we insisted on a limited amount I at that time stated that I knew the railway was short of equipment and I advocated that the equipment be purchased. The minister has not bought enough equipment yet. The railway is not yet properly equipped and the minister will have to spend more money before he can equip the road in order to take care of the trade that is now offering. He had not proper equipment but he would not come and admit to the House that he had taken somebody's word for something that was wrong. The Canadian Northern
in their statement at page 6 has the following :	'
The deficit of $5,700,647.70 is after crediting Miscellaneous Earnings and charging Deductions from Income. The actual operating deficit for the year is $6,471,846.35 as against net earnings of $3,247,061.97 for 1918 and net earnings of $7,443,369.41 for 1917. This loss between 1917 and 1919 of nearly 14 million dollars in net earnings is a direct reflection of the improper relation existing between earnings and operating expenses.
Now, the Canadian Pacific Railway report for the same year and for practically the same item is as follows:
The gross earnings of your transportation system during the fiscal year under review exceeded those of any previous year in the history of the company, and exceeded the gross earnings of 1918 by $19,391,362, but the net earnings were less by $1,369,351.
Had the Canadian Pacific maintained the same standard of equipment as the Canadian Northern they would have shown a profit of approximately eight and a 'half million dollars over the previous year, whereas we have shown a decrease of over nine million dollars. There must be something wrong when the management of the Canadian Pacific railway were able to report such a state of affairs, after taking into account the amount of money they spent on maintenance and equipment, a difference in their favour of eight and a half million dollars as against a difference adverse to us of over nine and a half million dollars. That must indicate to the minister that his management needs some investigation. It must show him that something is wrong with the management of the Canadian Northern, and my hon. friend should ascertain what is the trouble. I am quite satisfied that if he will go into the country and consult the people who are using the road and find out from them what kind of service they receive he will discover the reason for his deficit. He will find that the railway as at present managed will continue to lose more money every year because it is not giving satisfactory service to the people. Its patrons are not satisfied. I might draw attention . to another fact. The Canadian Northern Railway 'system, with approximately eight thousand miles of railroad, carried fewer passengers in 1919 than the Intercolonial, the National Transcontinental, and the other branches of the Canadian Government railways comprising four thousand miles. The four thousand miles of railway under the old management carried about fifty per cent more passengers than the eight thousand miles of the Canadian Northern, and

it is overwhelmingly obvious that there is some reason for this. We noticed in the press a few days ago an item to the effect that the Canadian Northern Railway were selling some $10,000,000 worth of bonds in the United States and paying seven per cent on them. I find in their balance sheet these items:
Cash and Victory Bonds in Trust Accounts held in respect of Construction work, Sinking Funds and other Special Accounts .... National Trust Company, $3,260,489.35.
This is apparently a provision for a sinking fund. That would be perfectly proper while the road was owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. But why should the Government of Canada have to allow the National Trust Company, of which I understand some hon. members opposite are directors, to have $3,000,000 of the Canadian people's money on deposit,- at what rate? Four per cent? We are paying seven per cent on the money in the United States, a loss of at least $100,000 a year on that item alone. We have another item, the Fidelity Trust Company Equipment series "D," 1919, $7,500,000. This item of the National Trust Company has been carried on from year to year at about the same amount. It would be all right for a private company to carry a trust fund, but it is unnecessary for the Dominion Government to appoint some private company as a trustee for Canada. Arrangements should be made to save that $100,000, or two or three hundred thousand, which we are paying to trust companies in profits made by friends of the Government. The whole item otf $14,000,000 mentioned in the statement would go a long way towards taking care of equipment. This committee should know what amount of equipment bonds has been issued. What amount of equipment bonds does the Government intend to issue, and have they in mind any policy? What amount would be necessary for them to sell of equipment bonds, and what other loans will be required to put the road in such shape that it can go on without further aid from the Government outside of paying for deficits? The minister last year told us when he made a loss of forty or fifty million dollars-a total loss in two or three years of some $140,000,000- that he was getting securities and notes on the mortgages of the 'Canadian Northern. But the Minister of Finance came down a few days ago and ran his pencil through the whole amount. He does not consider it of immediate value. It may have some value at some future date, but he cannot call it a live asset. In fact, he [Mr. Cahill. 1
discards it entirely as an asset. Now, how much more money does the Government expect to have to put into the system before it will be able to stand on its own feet so far as operation and capital charges are" concerned? When shall we reach that point where we shall be able to meet annual deficits on the undertaking? Does he intend to increase the rates and make the people who get the service pay for it, or does he intend to make the whole people pay, and leave matters in this most unsatisfactory state, simply coming to Parliament in the last days of the session and asking for huge amounts of money to be handed over to a private company that do not even give an audit? The minister stood up in his place a few weeks ago and said we would get just what information he thought it was advisable to give us. Now, we stand in relation to this road as owners. We are representing the' owners of the road. My hon. friend is simply our trustee. As our trustee he is entitled to give to the people's representatives in this House all information that he is asked for about the railway system. This is a public undertaking, it is the people's money that is in it, and my hon. friend has no more right to withhold information from this committee than he has to attempt to do away with the Auditor General's Department. When my hon. friend says he cannot tell us who they are insuring with because it is not in the public interest he is not treating the committee fairly or honestly. I notice the amount of the insurance premiums unexpired is $1,200,000. That is quite a large sum. Who are the insurance companies who are getting this business and how are they getting it? Who are the companies that we are buying rolling stock from and how are they getting business? Are they getting it by contract? My hon. friend says that it is not in the public interest that he should give us this information.
If the Minister of Railways will look at the report of the Grand Trunk Railway Company he will find a great deal more detailed information than there is in the report of either the Canadian Pacific or the report of the Canadian Northern. That is because the British stockholder is more inquisitive. That road has not been paying dividends and the stockholders want to know why. Therefore they are critical, they are inquisitive. On the other hand the it Canadian Pacific Railway Company have *been paying huge dividends; and when you *are geting dividends up to the limit of what Myou expect you are not so critical or in-

quisitive as to the conduct of the affairs cf the railway. Now, at page 18 of the Grand Trunk report I find that ties to the value of $1,374,000 were purchased in 1918 as compared with ties to the value ot $706,000 purchased in 1917, and the questions I would like the minister to answer are of this nature:	How many ties did the minister
buy, what price did he pay for them, and from whom did he buy? Did he buy by tender or private arrangement? From whom did the minister buy his cars and all the necessary equipment? How did he make the purchase? Was it by tender or by private arrangement? Did he buy from the directors of the company or from particular companies to which those directors belonged, or did he buy in the open market? Then I would like to know how did he sell the scrap from the railway-the scrap of the cars, the old rails, the old bolts, the fishplates and all the scrap that is annually sold by a railway company? I want to know to whom he sold, how he sold- whether by tender, by auction or in what manner-and who the lucky bidder was? I also want to know how the minister buys his supplies? For instance, does he buy his groceries from those two grocers who are directors of this undertaking? A railway company will buy a great deal of groceries in a year. How many dollars' worth does my hon. friend buy and from whom does he buy? Does hie buy his groceries from the groeeT director of the railway in Winnipeg and (the grocer director of the railway in Montreal, or does he buy them in the open market by competition? The minister must also give us an idea of what the balance sheet of the different subsidiary companies discloses-their liabilities and assets, and what property of theirs we own and what we do not own. The minister must also tell us how he buys materials and what price he pays for them. We want to know where he buys his ties, his lumber-in fact where he buys everything and the price he pays for it. The minister cannot argue that the presentation of such information is not in the public interest. It is certainly more in the public interest that the people generally should be satisfied that they are getting a square deal, than if it is to allow the suspicion to exist that purchases are being made from the directors of this company. Hence I wish the minister to give us the fullest information possible concerning these matters. Then we shall be in a better position to determine the best method by which we can pull this undertaking out of the hole and make it a prosperous instead of losing one as it is
at present. My hon. friend has asked for constructive criticism and we have heard a great many demands in this House for that kind of thing. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had a watch to repair I would not take it to a blacksmith. In the same way if I have a plan for the successful management of a system of railways I would hesitate to entrust it to my hon. friend because I am afraid he would bungle the job. There is no question that this undertaking can be put on its feet and made prosperous and made to pay, for the public will be at its back if. they think they are getting a square deal. But I will make this one suggestion to my hon. friend-and he cannot say this is not constructive criticism-he must get the management and the directorate of his railway system in shape; they must be the best that he can get and not such material as he has to-day.


John Dowsley Reid: In view of the remarks of the hon. member I feel that it is incumbent upon me to occupy a few minutes in answering some of the points that he has tried to make. One might gather the impression from hiis opening remark that this Government had in some way altered the railway policy of the previous administration as regards operation and rates. So far as railway rates are 'Concerned they are under the supervision of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That board was appointed by the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in my opinion-having regard to the public interest and the efficient operation of railways-it was one of the best pieces of legislation that was ever put through this Parliament.


Frank S. Cahill: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it
there has been no departure in any shape or form from the position as created by that legislation. So far as the control of railways is concerned the position is the *same ;as it was under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier except to this extent: The Canadian National Railway Bill which has been passed will bring every federal railway in Canada under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway 'Commissioners.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Does the minister
mean to say that every railway in Canada will come under the operation of that commission?


John Dowsley Reid: I mean every railway under Dominion jurisdiction. Perhaps the hon. member has in mind that it would apply to a railway incorporated by provincial charter, but if so I say no.


Alexander William Chisholm: I know that. That
was my reason for asking the question.


John Dowsley Reid: As regards the Government railways the board have been notified that they are to consider all complaints or charges until the Bill referred to becomes effective. They are to consider and deal with these questions exactly in the same manner as though that Bill were law to-day. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, all railways owned by the Government, or railways brought under Dominion jurisdiction by being declared works for the general advantage of Canada, are under the Board of Railway Commissioners, so far as regards freight rates or indeed any other matter as to which the board have power to act. Therefore I cannot see what reason there is for any complaint on my hon. friend's part with respect to the matter of railway rates.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not wish to interrupt the minister but I rather intended to convey an impression opposite to that which he seems to have gathered. I know the Railway Commission is a good thing; I believe the legislation which created it was the best legislation ever passed in this country. The minister says the Railway Commissioners have full power to regulate railway rates. That is quite true, but the board will not attempt to regulate them until asked to do |so by either the public or a railway company. The members of the board themselves do not go out into the country and search around and inquire as to wh ether railway rates are right or wrong; they must be asked by some person, or some company, to regulate those rates. I wanted to ask the minister a question on this point because he seems to be skating dexterously over that piece of thin ice: Did the Canadian Northern Railway Company ask the Railway Commission for an increase of rates? The board have the power to increase the rates, but this Parliament has the final say. Parliament can veto the ruling of the Railway Board. Even if the board said that the rates should be reduced this Parliament could provide for an increase if such was thought necessary. I would therefore ask if the Railway Commission nave been asked to grant an increase of rates.


John Dowsley Reid: I want to give the hon. member the fullest information in connection with this matter; I do not think any hon. member feels, having regard to the statements that I have made, that I am trying to slide over anything. I under-

stand the hon. member to ask whether the Canadian National Railways have made an application, to the Board of Railway Commissioners for an increase in rates.


Mr. BUREAU:: Does the Canadian
National Railway Company exist in fact?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, the Canadian National Railways-yes, they do exist.


Jacques Bureau: The Canadian National
Railway Company.


John Dowsley Reid: That question is not a very serious one. The Canadian Northern -if the hon. member (Mr. Cahill) prefers that name-the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian National Railways, the New York Central-all these lines meet and agree upon making the necessary application if a change of rates is contemplated. I do not think that they have 'made any such application to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I made inquiries in that regard, not only from the Canadian National Railways, but from some other railways. The answer I got was this: the question of increased freight rates is now before the Interstate Commerce Commission. I am under the impression that the reason why the Canadian railways have not yet made application to the Railway Commission for an increase of rates is that they are waiting to see what the result will be on the other side of the line. My hon. friend asked also if Parliament had not the final say as to increased freight rates; in other words, whether a refusal on the part of the Railway Commission to grant an increase could be vetoed by Parliament. As I understand the constitution of Canada, Parliament is supreme in everything; therefore if Parliament wishes to increase the freight rates, even though the Railway Commission may refuse an increase, it is my opinion that Parliament can do so.


Onésiphore Turgeon: May we deduce from the statement just made by the minister that Parliament may express its opinion and give its judgment as to the advisability of increasing the rates or of maintaining them on their present basis?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, Parliament may express its opinion with regard to freight rates or with regard to anything else. Many times since I have been here Parliament has expressed its opinion with regard to action that should be taken in certain matters. Therefore if Parliament wishes to express its judgment that the rates should be increased; there is no

reason why it should not do so. With reference to the railways in the United States, the statement has been made in the House that there will be no moTe deficits on the United States railways now that they have been returned to private ownership. The other evening I clipped the following item from a newspaper, which shows the results of the operation of United States railways since they were returned to private ownership:
Washington, June 22.-Railroad operations during April, the second month of private control showed a loss of $15,625,529, the Interstate Commerce Commission announced yesterday.
During April last year the roads showed a profit of $20,703,196, the commission said.
The operating expenditure during April, 1920, was $322,338,785, as compared with $276,576,590 in April last year.
Under the Transportation Act, the roads are guaranteed a return upon their investment for six months. The loss for April, therefore, means that the taxpayer will have to pay the amount of the loss plus the amount of the guaranteed returns either directly or through increased rates.
I quote 'this merely to show that on the other side of the line losses are made under private ownership as well as under Government ownership.
Mr. MAiCKIE (East Edmonton): Do the American railroad companies keep their books as we.do, without taking account of fixed charges or loans, which, in connection with our Government railways, are included in the public accounts? Or have they a proper system of 'bookkeeping in arriving at that conclusion?


John Dowsley Reid: The books of the railways on the other side are kept under the same system as the books of railways operated in Canada.


Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: Is it
not a fact that in Canada none of the fixed charges in connection with the railways are found in the railway accounts, except in the case of the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, which are incorporated roads; that in connection with all Government roads the fixed charges are found in the public accounts?


John Dowsley Reid: I was referring, of
course, to the privately-owned roads, not to the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental. Now, the hon. member (Mr. Cahill) next referred to the management and to our present directorate, pointing out that we had appointed men who were not railway experts. Well, we took over the Canadian Northern Railway system and we put
together all the railways comprising the Government railway system. The management that had been in control of the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental were kept on exactly the same as they were before, with this exception:	when the roads were brought
together some men were released and others were promoted-in all cases, men who had been employed in connection with these railway systems. To illustrate:	The general
traffic manager of the Intercolonial, Mr. Hayes, was made general traffic manager of the whole system from Vancouver to Sydney. Mr. Brady, who was manager of the Transcontinental, was made manager of the lines from Port Arthur to Sydney. Mr. Warren was advanced to general manager of western lines, and so on.
Let me say this in passing as regards my experience in connection with the employees of the railways we now own, and I want to include all our railways from Sydney to Vancouver. I have in my investigations come to the conclusion that the employees on the 15,000 miles of railway that we now own are, as a whole, as good as and equal to those of the Canadian Pacific railway or any other railway on the American continent. I want to pay them that tribute, because I find, from inquiries made amongst the travelling public that, as a rule, with, perhaps, an odd exception where some complaints may have been made, our employees are civil and endeavour in every way to serve the public well. As regards traffic,- with the present shortage of equipment on our railways, our employees have, in my opinion, carried out their work in a manner equal to those of any other railway on the continent of America, and I want to pay them that tribute at the present time.


Mr. JACOBS:: How is it that it takes
the Canadian Northern railway about one-third longer time than other railways to go from Ottawa to Montreal? What is the difficulty?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Pacific
railway have a fast train to Montreal, but they also have slower trains.


Samuel William Jacobs: They take three and a
half hours, not four and a half hours.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not finished
my answer. They have two or three trains a day, including a fast train, between here and Montreal. The reason that train can run so fast is that it does not make so many stops, although it does not run one minute faster between stations. The Cana-

dian National railways do not run so many trains because there is not the same traffic, and, moreover, up to the present time they have not had the equipment to put on more fast trains. They have had to run fewer trains on account of lack of passenger equipment.
As regards the management of the Canadian National railways, my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) takes issue with Mr. Hanna, president of the road. That is a grievance which I cannot help, and it does not seem possible for me to bring these two gentlemen together and make them friends. Mr. Hanna, however, is only one man connected with the operation of the railways, and the fact that he is president does not mean that the road is not being operated economically and in the interest of the public.
With reference to the Board of Directors, the hon. member has referred to the fact that Mr. Cantley is president of the Eastern Car Company, a company which receives large orders from the railways, and he says that we should say whether these orders are got by tender and so on. I think I said in this House a year ago that when these directors were being appointed, we endeavoured to select prominent business men in whom the Canadian people would have confidence, and to associate with them officials connected with the operation of the railway. As regards my action in recommending that policy at that time, I stated that I was not a railway expert; I am not a railway expert now and never will be; I do not expect to be able to claim that I am a railway expert; and I must depend upon those connected with the operation of the railway. If I was wrong at that time in recommending that policy, it was because I followed out a policy that the Canadian Pacific Railway had adopted and carried out for many years, that is, in having for a board of directors, a certain number of their own officials, paid absolutely by the railway, and, in addition, prominent business men selected from all parts of Canada who could meet together on the board once a month to give good advice regarding conditions in different parts of the country and who, perhaps, might also assist in bringing traffic to the railway. To adopt such a policy in connection with public ownership may have been a mistake. With regard to the Canadian Pacific directorate, almost every director outside of the management is interested in various corporations, and many of them are interested in corporations which are selling goods to 
that railway. That may not be a good policy, and it is for the Government to decide whether they will adopt a policy of having a board of management composed only of paid officials of the railway, the best men we can find being selected for that work, and having no other board than that, or whether we are to continue with the policy as now laid down. In my opinion- and I did not hesitate to express it last year and I am now expressing it again- if the public believe that we should not have on the board men, although they are business men, men whose character and reputation are beyond dispute, who are interested in other corporations and so on, then it is not in the public interest that such men should remain on the board. But that is a matter which will have to be taken up and decided, and whatever decision the Government may come to, we must assume the responsibility.
The hon. member (Mr. Cahill) referred to public ownership, and I should judge from his remarks that he is not in favour of public ownership. I want to state once more that this is not a question whether we are oar were in favour of public ownership. Public ownership was forced on the people of Canada. We could not help it; it came to us without our wish; but here it is, and as we now have public ownership, I cannot for the life of me see, if we appoint men in whom the public have confidence, any reason why we cannot select from our own railway officials men who are just as able to operate that road successfully as men who might be appointed similarly by the Canadian Pacific. I cannot for the life of me see why the matter will not work out in that way.


Frank S. Cahill: Why not try it?
Mr. J. D. RiEID: Give us a little time and see what will be done. We are bringing the Canadian Northern railway, the Government railways and the Grand Trunk railway under one system, and I have asked for time for this reason. It is my judgment that the time to put the management in charge of all this railway system is when we have the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, and the Canadian Government railways all under one system. We should appoint the management then, and we shall see what the result will be. Therefore, I want to repeat again: If we put the men there, we should give them an opportunity, and the result will, in mv

opinion, be the same as that of other railways.
The hon. member said that the equipment of the Canadian Northern when we took over the road was a lot of old junk.


Frank S. Cahill: A lot of it, not all.


John Dowsley Reid: Before we took over the Canadian Northern system we had expert valuators go over the whole equipment and they valued it for what it was worth at that time. I am quite sme that my hon. friend, if he saw the valuators' report would not think that the equipment we took over was old junk.
My (hon. friend has also referred to the Mackenzie and Mann interests, and has stated that we are in partnership with Mackenzie and Mann so far as the Duluth and Winnipeg railway is concerned.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not know how many others.


John Dowsley Reid: We will take that one first. Information respecting all these railways was given to the House when the Bill was put through. It was shown in Parliament that Mackenzie and Mann owned 49 per cent of the Duluth and Winnipeg railway, and that they retained that interest when we took over the Canadian Northern.


Frank S. Cahill: What Bill does my hon.
friend refer to?


John Dowsley Reid: The information appeared in the blue hook which was laid on the Table at that time, and which is a part of the records of the House.


Frank S. Cahill: At what time?


John Dowsley Reid: In 1914. The blue book shows the interest Mackenzie and Mann had in all these subsidiary companies. It showed whether we were purchasing them outright, or whether there were other interests. For instance, the city of Quebec has some interest in the Canadian Northern Quebec.


Frank S. Cahill: Have Mackenzie and Mann no interest in that road?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so. The information is all set out in the blue book. My hon. friend says that the Duluth and Winnipeg railway is making money. It is; it is one of the best parts of the system. My hon. friend has also referred to the Town-site Company, of which Mr. Hanna was president. If my memory serves me right, when we took over the Canadian Northern all the land was taken over except the townsites, which Mackenzie and Mann
owned personally. The valuation was made on that basis. I cannot blame my hon. friend fcxr the position he takes because he has got his information from the public records, but I can assure him that if he understood the whole situation he would come to a different opinion. Prior to the Government taking over the Canadian Northern the townsites owned by Mackenzie and Mann had been given as collateral security to parties who had made a large loan to the Canadian Northern. The parties would not advance the money otherwise, so these townsites privately owned by Mackenzie and Mann were given as collateral security for the loan. They were not released when we took over the road, but are still held as security for the loan that was made.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Have Mackenzie and Mann still an equity in these townsites?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. Now the Canadian Northern system in order to see that the money collected from the sale of these town-sites went to the trustees for the bondholders appointed directors to see that the money was used for the particular purpose for which the security was given, and when the Government took over the Canadian Northern we had to have some of our Canadian Northern or Canadian National officials as directors of the Townsite Company, so that they would have control of the money until the maturity of the bonds.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like the minister to make that a little more clear. When the Townsite Company sells a lot, why do they have to keep any track of the money so far as the Government is concerned? As I understand it, when the bonds are paid off the lands will revert to Mackenzie and Mann interests. The Government will pay off the bonds and the lands revert to Mackenzie and Mann, so there is nothing to the minister's argument that we must keep some one to look after Mackenzie and Mann interests. Our men should be looking after our own interests, not the interests of Mackenzie and Mann.


John Dowsley Reid: The townsites were
given to the present bondholders as collateral security. Now, you cannot wipe out the collateral security. Therefore, the sales from these townsites must go to the trustees for the bondholders. Eventually any equity Mackenzie and Mann have in the townsites will go to them.


John Archibald Campbell: I understand that the bondholders have a claim against these

townsites, and that the Government have practically assumed that indebtedness, and that when that indebtedness is paid off the townsites will go back to Mackenzie and Mann. Is that correct? Another question: Were there any townsites belonging to the Canadian Northern Railway Company?


John Dowsley Reid: Answering the last first, the Canadian Northern may have some townsites at some new places, but when we took over the road we did not take over any townsites. We took over the land, as I stated before. When these townsites to which my hon. friend refers are sold, the proceeds are held as collateral for the bonds. It is true that the Government must return to Mackenzie and Mann the town-sites or the money we get for them. So far as any equity Mackenzie and Mann have in these townsites is concerned, they are willing to let the Government take over the townsites now by arbitration, if the Government so desire.


Frank S. Cahill: In the interest of the people I would ask the minister for Heaven's sake not to undertake any more arbitration with the Canadian Northern.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the people of this country agree with my hon. friend. I think they would have confidence in any arbitration that might take place. There is only one concern in which Mackenzie iand Mann are interested, and they are only very slightly interested, and that is the docks at Port Arthur. There is a very small equity there and the docks are being used in connection with the Canadian Northern railway. This was indicated at the time of the arbitration, and there is no secrecy about it; and if at any time the Government desire to take over the docks they can do so on the basis decided at the arbitration. So far as I know this is the only interest that Mackenzie and Mann have in connection with the Canadian National railways. They have no say whatever in regard to the operation of the system, and this very small interest does not affect the management in the slightest degree.


John Archibald Campbell: A railway man said to me that Mackenzie and Mann still hold some interest in some of the equipment.


John Dowsley Reid: That railway man, whoever he was, said something in regard to which he had no information whatever. Mackenzie and Mann have no such interest, and the statement only goes to show what stories are circulating throughout the coun-
try prejudicial to the interests of the railway.


John Archibald Campbell: Well, I thought I would give the hon. minister an opportunity to deny the statement.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) found fault with us because the maintenance of the Canadian National railways was more than that of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank S. Cahill: No, less.


John Dowsley Reid: Rather, that the
Canadian Pacific was more than the Canadian Northern. Well, the explanation is simple. The density of traffic accounts to a large extent for the difference. The Canadian Pacific railway runs through larger cities and therefore they should expend more than the Canadian Northern. If I remember rightly, the hon. member also stated that the Canadian Government railways carried more passengers than the whole Canadian Northern system carried in 1918. The hon. member must bear in mind that during that year practically every returned soldier that came from the other side landed at Halifax. These men went from Halifax to Moncton, and so much traffic was accordingly credited to the Intercolonial, My hon. friend complains bitterly that we are leaving in the National Trust Company of Toronto a large deposit as shown in the report submitted to Parliament. The hon. gentleman asks why we should leave $3,260,489.35 on deposit with the National Trust Company instead of the Government taking and using that money. There are other large amounts on deposit with trust companies: the Fidelity Trust Company re equipment series $7,500,000, Pennsylvania Company $400,000 and so on. The hon. gentleman must bear in mind that these moneys are held by the trustees for the bondholders and said moneys will be released from time to- time as the equipment which is the collateral security for the bonds is delivered and paid for by the railway company and ultimately all these moneys so held in trust will be released.
The hon. gentleman also asks how much more will have to be put into the Canadian National railways; are we to continue spending money 'or equipment and for new construction and when is it to stop? When we took over the Canadian Northern its equipment was probably about one-third that of the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific owned about four and a half cars per mile while the Canadian Northern

owned about one and a half and the result was that the Canadian Northern could not onrly not give a proper service but could not take away the traffic that was originating on its lines. I came into this House not once but twice asking for authority to purchase more equipment, and I believe every hon. member will agree that it is good policy to get sufficient equipment at as early a moment as possible to take care of the traffic originating on the Canadian National lines. We have not sufficient equipment now and were it not for the large expenditures that must be made for other purposes I would urge doubling the equipment at the present time. If I did what my judgment prompts me to do I would order right now at least 5,000 coal cars, get them here at the earliest possible moment and use them to carry coal from Nova Scotia and Alberta so that this country might be in no danger of a fuel shortage. But when I come to this House and ask for $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 for equipment, people say that I am asking for money for the Canadian National system that should not be expended. Every dollar we can afford to put into equipment is the best money that can be spent in Canada to-day. It will encourage people to produce, and to take their raw materials and have them manufactured, it will help to export our goods to foreign countries' fund it will in addition save a crisis in some of our provinces that could not take place if we had proper equipment. If I came again and asked for $15,000,000, $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 for cars that are absolutely necessary if we are going to protect the people of this country from probable trouble on the ground of the shortage of coal supplies I would likely receive criticism that would hardly be justified. Conditions are such that I have in my estimates hesitated to ask for any more for this purpose.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: How much are the private-owned roads of the United States asking for similar equipment? Are they not asking for over $1,000,000,000?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Frank S. Cahill: The minister's reference to insurance shows that the Government are getting something now that they are not entitled to and which should be made public. The minister says he can get a better rate by keeping the information secret. Let me tell him that the Government is not entitled to any better rate than the law permits so there is no reason why this information should not be disclosed. The same thing applies to the purchase of ties. You can go to the meeting of the directors 
of any railway company, as a shareholder, and ask to see the books, and they will show them to you. In the present instance as a trustee there is twice as much reason for your getting access to that information.
There is another point I want to make. Comparing the directors of the Government railways with the directors, for example, of the Canadian Pacific railway, the latter are men that are directly and financially interested in the welfare of that line. They have grown more soi from year to year. They have large interests in the Canadian Pacific railway and its affairs are of vital interest to them. Every director of that company is personally interested in the efficient operation of the line. Unless you get that selfish interest presenting itself Somewhere in the undertaking you are not going to get very far. There is no doubt that all of us are selfish and our first consideration is for ourselves. We like to make money for ourselves; that is only in accordance with human nature. So I say that these Canadian Pacific directors are directly interested in the management of the railway for the benefit primarily of themselves. You cannot possibly argue, with any show of reason, that because you pick up a man who is successful in his own business, and pay him $2,000 or $2,500 to act as director of a railway company that he is going to give its operations that direct and personal interest that he would if it were his own private business in which he was making money. The two things are directly opposed to each other. With the directors of the Canadian Pacific the success of their line is the first consideration. It is true that they have other business connections, but this is one of their big interests. In the case of the Government Bailway system the directors have other interests and the operation of these railways is only a side issue with them. Therefore the minister's illustrations are entirely beside the question. The illustrations may look well on paper but they are not the same in the practical working out.
The people you want as directors are men who are directly interested in the development of that raliway. A director who has no shares is not responsible to any person. The minister can remove him but it does not hurt him if he is removed because he has no responsibility. I repeat that what we want to do i6 to get on the directorate people who are directly interested in the welfare of this railway system, people whose future is tied up in it and to

whom the enterprise represents their life's work. These men will give to the undertaking their best thought and consideration, and their best efforts and labour. If the directorate consists of men who have no such interest in the undertaking ae 1 have stated you are bound to have deficits, and they will go on increasing.
.Mr. J. D. REDD: The hon. member has just stated that the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company can go to the offices of the company and see every item of expenditure in connection with its operations.


Frank S. Cahill: At the annual meeting.


John Dowsley Reid: At the annual meeting any shareholder can get information in connection with the expenditures from the company but at such meeting there must be first a vote of the shareholders before that information is granted. I would like to make this other point: Suppose a shareholder did go to the offices and ask for information, I am told the president would ask him for what reason he wanted the information. If he stated he believed there was something wrong, the president would ask him for the source of his information and the shareholder having the interest of the company at heart would disclose it. But you would not find that shareholder going to the newspapers with any information he received if it were going to injure the company. On the other hand, the shareholders of the Canadian Government railways comprise every citizen in the Dominion. While members of Parliament have treated us fairly-in so far as the disclosing of information is concerned-there are, in my opinion, good reasons why the outside public should not be allowed to go to the railway management and ask "What are you paylhg for this, and what are you paying for that?" I think even the hon. member himself will agree with me that- outside of this House at all events-there are Canadian citizens that would like awfully well to get such information, and for two reasons:	One,
in order to be able to disclose it for the purpose of injuring public ownership, and another for the purpose of creating trouble between the railway companies. They might even go so far as to try to get that information in the hope of using it to assist them in making some money in one way or the other. That is what would happen. The shareholders of a private company, as a body, will work for the success of the 267
enterprise, and the people of this country as a whole will work loyally for the success of the Canadian National Railways; but the disclosure to the public of such information as asked for to the whole public I am afraid would injure our national system.


William Findlay Maclean: There is one
thing evident in this country now that we have got public ownership going, and that is that the national railways are, for the first time, making the pace. It is surprising how the opponents of public ownership are prepared to criticise, and do criticise, this policy, and they present all the arguments they possibly can against it. It is evident, however, that the national railways of Canada-while they have been acquired, as has been stated here, as a matter of compulsion; we had to take them over, and I am one of those who are glad we have taken them over-are going to vindicate themselves. The deficits which now exist will soon cease to exist and we will get a better service in this country. As I said before the pace is being made to-day; and you will see running between Toronto and Ottawa, within a week or two, a national service given by the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern that will be the best thing in the way of passenger service that we have known up to date.


Mr. COPP:: How about the service in
other parts of Canada?


William Findlay Maclean: That improved
service will be extended all over, and the improved equipment is coming.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why should it be confined
to the territory between Ottawa and Toronto? What about the Maritime Provinces?


William Findlay Maclean: Wait until you see. You have political administration of the Intercolonial railway.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister says not.


William Findlay Maclean: You did have, and the hon. gentleman and his friends were those who made it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Nothing of the kind.


William Findlay Maclean: I know all about it, and I saw it at work in this House; I have been here too long not to notice it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When did that administration stop?	%


William Findlay Maclean: It stopped largely when the hon. gentleman's friend's went out of office.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: But we are now having public ownership. We are getting improvements in the operation of the Government railways, and the pace is being made. The proof of that is that the Canadian Pacific are making the announcement that they are going to have this improved equipment; that they are going to try what we are doing now and get rid of all unnecessary duplications. It is because the national railways are now consolidating and giving improvements, and have to a ' large extent been freed from political interference that this opposition seems to grow and that this criticism is indulged in. For my part I hope there will be absolutely non-political administration of the national railways of this country. Some criticism has been made here to-day of the Board of Directors who are at present in control of the national railways, on the ground that with these directors who are practical railway men, are associated a number of business men. I believe that the entire administration and the directorate should be in the hands of absolutely practical railway men, and I believe that will come. The distinguished example of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been referred to, but I do hot approve of the record of some of the directors of that company who are not railway experts. Within the Canadian Pacific Railway Company there have been a number of directors-if you ask me, and I am only giving you my information -who were not in the railway business for the advancement of the line so much as they were in the hope of making money in connection with speculations with respect to railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


William Findlay Maclean: I can
name some; the Grand Trunk is a case in point. The struggles of the Grand Trunk for existence arose largely through the fact that the men on the directorate were more or less associated with stock speculations in the Old Country-and there have 'been instances of that here in Canada. I do not *want to see any of these men connected with the administration of our national railways. I want to see our national railways administered by railway experts who are responsible to the Government and to Parliament, who are subject to the criticism of auditors as well as to the criticism of this House, of the press, and of the people 
generally. I am confident that when the appeal is made to the people to support their national railways they will give them their business, and in a short time we will see great improvements. You go across the country and you see unnecessary duplications, unnecessary sidings and unnecessary stations-between Montreal and Toronto, for example, or between Ottawa and Toronto-you see these duplications that private ownership has imposed on the country, and you feel ashamed of the wastefulness and extravagance there exposed. But under public ownership we now see unnecessary men going out of the service; unnecessary stations are being closed; unnecessary ticket offices are being eliminated. You see the telegraphs of the country gradually coming into the national service; you see the telegraph and 'ticket offices in the same building, as is the case with the Canadian Pacific.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And you see increases of rates.


William Findlay Maclean: They may
increase the rates, just as the hon. member is increasing the Tates for his services. He has to do it; the conditions compel him tb do it. Does the hon. member say that the rates should not he increased if the requirements call for it? Even lawyers' fees are going up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre-François Casgrain: They have been the same in our province for years.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) to intimate that a saving should result from all these things, but instead of that the people have to pay more for the use of the facilities which he has mentioned.


William Findlay Maclean: We .have not had an opportunity to put all these things into effect; they are only beginning. I say that unnecessary duplication is being eliminated, as is unnecessary expense in connection with soliciting business-that is all coming to an end. The result will be benefit not only to the national railways but also to the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific will be a better road as a result of the consolidation that is now going on in connection with our railways; it will cause them to devote more attention to service than to the securing of business. I am confident that the pe.ople are determined to give public ownership a fair trial and that they are willing to vote the money for

the purpose of doing so. The minister is asking for a comparatively small number of millions for additional equipment-


Jacques Bureau: Small number of millions !


William Findlay Maclean: The railways in the United States have been so badly administered that they have nearly all been in the receiver's hands-not because the Government took them over, but because the Government was forced to administer them in order to get any kind of service during the war. Now that they are being returned to private ownership the attitude of the average investor in American railroads to-d'ay is a prayer to God that the Government will take the roads over and administer them and let these people out of their investment. When hon. gentlemen say that private ownership has been a success in the United States and that we in Canada are going to run into something that will occasion great loss to us, they should remember that private ownership furnishes the most glaring example of maladministration of great interests that has ever been witnessed in the world's history. Now, that is rather a broad thing to say, but when you go into the facts and when you see how privately-owned roads of the United States have been wrecked by those who control them-and who, quietly and in an underground way, are interested in them to the extent of selling supplies and" making money out of them-you should not be surprised to find that private ownership has not attained the success claimed for it in the United States. But in this country we now have a chance to make a success of public ownership, largely because we are able to cut out unnecessary expense, eliminate duplications and make savings of one kind or another that will result in benefit to the people. Hereafter our national railways will not be run to make mo i *y for shareholders or anything of that kind; w.e are going to put the money into a better service and into the extension of lines; when settlers go into new parts of our country we are going to try to send the rails after them. I hope that some of these unnecessary rails will be used in the construction of colonizing lines in the West or wherever they may be needed. When it is stated that public opinion is not much in favour of nationally-owned railways, I want to repeat *what I have said in the House before:-and I am speaking now to the Farmers' party in this House-that the Council of Agriculture in the United States, 2674
an organization similar to the Canadian Council of Agriculture, have declared in favour of public ownership. The American Federation of Labour, which met in Montreal the other day, have declared in favour of public ownership. For the first time we have a Government in office which, no matter what their faults in other respects may have been, have done much in the way of giving public ownership a start. The assets of the Grand Trunk and its connection with the business towns of Quebec and Ontario are so valuable that opponents to public ownership are beginning to cry out; they do not want to see the lines in the West of the Transcontinental, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific linked up with that splendid system, the Grand Trunk, which we have in the East. To-day the people of Canada have in their national railways the best transcontinental service in the country, or will have when the system is trimmed up, as it will be in a little while. We have the best strategical positions in all the cities of Canada now by reason of this combination. You go into Montreal and see what we get in the way of railway assets through the acquisition of the Grand Trunk.


Jacques Bureau: And personal injury cases every day on account of people being killed at the crossings in Montreal.


William Findlay Maclean: That is not the fault of public ownership; it is the fault of the hon. member for not improving the law.


Jacques Bureau: But you are talking about the valuable lands that we are getting in level crossings.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, they are valuable lands.


Jacques Bureau: They kill a man a day
on those crossings.


William Findlay Maclean: They are very
valuable, and we have similar assets all over the country. It is because we have these valuable assets in the East, these sidings in the East, this connection with inindustrial towns and cities in the East, that public ownership is looked upon with extreme disfavour by those who are inclined to oppose it on ordinary grounds. I regret that the party that claims to be the party of progress and democracy in this county-said to be the party on the opposite side-never looked upon it as a democratic policy that the people, not the private companies, should own the railroads, of this

country. Private companies have always been the parties of interest. But democracy in this country is now asserting to itself the right to administer the railways, to build them up and to devote them to service rather than to profit. Most criticism of public ownership comes from gentlemen who claim to be consecrated to Liberalism and democracy. Nevertheless, public ownership is coming now; it is here and with us; we have to make the best we can out of it, and I believe it is going to succeed.
Let me tell the committee another thing that will happen now that we have public ownership in connection with our railways. What is it that every little town, village and railroad station in the East and in the West wants? It is what I will call a community centre. Now that we have national railways and a station in every one of these little towns and villages, the time has come when there ought to be in every such town or village a community centre, where there will be the railway station and ticket office, the post office, the national telegraph office, and if there is a provincially-owned telephone system, it will be able to find a home in that building. That being the case, by concentrating all that business into one building at that one point, we shall have a telephone service, a railway service, a telegraph service, and all those other great public services.


Jacques Bureau: A fire station.


William Findlay Maclean: And, perhaps, a fire station. There is the 'hon. gentleman criticising again; there is the professed Liberal in this country. The moment you suggest something for the benefit of the people of this country, you encourage the criticism of my hon. friend.


Jacques Bureau: A fire station there would be the greatest protection you could have.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, you could call the fire brigade out at any hour of the night through this community centre. I have explained what is coming through public ownership. This is the first time in the history of this country that the scattered towns and villages of the West and the towns and villages of Ontario and Quebec are going to have those community centres. This will be similar to what the French call the department of communications which embraces railways, telegraphs, post offices and telephones, all being concentrated in one centre and owned by the people.
I want to speak just for a moment in regard to the railway station in the city of [ Mr. W. F. Maclean.]
Toronto. I referred to the matter in the House, but I was able to do so only by way of asking a question of the Government. I want to call the attention of the Government to the fact that a great deal of money has been spent in Toronto by what is called the Terminals Company for the erection of a new union station in that city. That Terminals Company is made up of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the old Grand Trunk Railway Company. They have built a fine station at Toronto, and the Government have come in with them and become partners by securing the whole east wing of that new union station for a public post office to handle and distribute outgoing and incoming mail. That building has been completed, and it has cost up to date between two and three million dollars. The biggest contributors up to date are the people of Canada, and yet the Board of Railway Commissioners has issued an order that railways going into that new station shall elevate their track. This can only be done at an enormous cost including land damages that may involve thirty or forty million dollars, and by reason of that order of the board, we cannot get the use of that station or its facilities, nor of that magnificent new post office that we have built there for the distribution of outgoing and incoming mail. The old union station in Toronto is the worst station in Canada, and yet several weeks after the new union station has been practically completed, we cannot get the use of it. I want to say to the Minister of Railways that he should immediately, on behalf of the railway system of this country, ask the Board of Railway Commissioners to suspend that order in regard to those elevated tracks. We cannot at the present time get the money necessary to elevate those tracks, and we do not wan* to have to pay the enormous damages that the elevation of those tracks would call for. Therefore, I think the Government, and especially the Minister of Railways, ought to ask for a -suspension of that order so that that splendid station may be used not only by the people of Toronto, but by any one who may go there from other parts of the country Having put all this money into that new union station, we shall have there the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern, and the Intercolonial if they wish to come that far, and we shall be only too glad to see them run into 'Toronto, using that new station. I am sure hon. members from Toronto will support me in saying that if that new station is completed and if it is held up in its use

by reason of that order of the board, that order should be suspended for the time being so that we may have the use of that station. Having a model station there, we shall presently have more of them throughout the country. I am not proposing any extravagant expenditures in connection with stations; but I believe you will eee a better station at Montreal soon, and the result will be the building of better stations throughout the country. As soon as the Government eay to the people of Canada: Support your own railways, I am sure the people will go to the support of their railways, and that will not be to the detriment of the Canadian Pacific, because there is ia future for both railways in Canada. I want to point out one thing to the Canadian Pacific railway, namely, that it will find in this new Government system a better coworker and ally than in the old system. I hope before long that some kind of pooling arrangement or, perhaps, a distribution of some of the territories, giving the lead at one (point to one road and at another point to. another, will be arranged for. But the Canadian Pacific is not going to. be damaged or injured in any way by our having a real national line owned by the people and extending all the way across the continent. I have every confidence that, now that the national system of railways has been established, it will prove a great success and the people will see the benefits of this policy.
My prediction is-and I want to he judged by my prediction, and I have not often been wrong in connection with -the railways of this country-that within five years the United States Government iwill own the railways of that country. They will find that they will have to. follow our example, and I believe the Americans will take their railways out of politics. I know that one of the planks in the platform of the Republican party is that they are against public ownership of railways, but I believe the great majority of the people of the United States are in favour of public ownership just -as the majority of the people of Canada are. That being the case, I hope the consolidation will go on, and again I eay to the Minister of Railways that it is perhaps not going on fast enough. We have -a committee to .consolidate the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern, and to my mind the consolidation is going on a little too slowly. I hope it will move quicker now, .and that wTe shall see ail these useless stations closed and unnecessary officials dismissed and a large portion of
the railroads for the first 'time devoted to service Tather than to the making of profits for shareholders. That is the underlying principle that commends itself to me in favour of public ownership.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I want to make one or two observations on the subject of transportation in this country, because it has a very deep interest for me. The hon. member for Pontiac, who opened the discussion, expressed a preference for private ownership under public control. I cannot quite understand what the hon. gentleman was driving at, because we have had private ownership in this country under semi-public control, through the Railway Commission, and it has not proved a wonderful success. It. passes my comprehension how any hon. member of this House who has made any serious study of the railway question in this country can take a position opposed to public ownership. Very frequently we hear it charged-I have heard it charged session after session in this House-that the Government voluntarily embarked on this public ownership policy, and that it was sure to prove a national disaster. Now I think it cannot be too frequently repeated that the Government did not voluntarily embark on a policy of public ownership. Private ownership came to a disastrous end in this country, and it probably could not have been otherwise, because, as you will' find by the records, every railroad in this country-even including the great Canadian Pacific, which cost such an immense amount of money, was subsidized by the people of this country to an extent that Sir John Willison in an article in a newspaper described as "an outrage on a free people"- was practically paid for by the people. We need not go back to discuss the Canadian Pacific railway, but every dollar that road cost has been put up by the people of this country. After that road had been built, we undertook to embark on another great transcontinental railway, the Transcontinental, which was to have cost the people of this country some $13,000,000. As a matter of fact, the road has cost us $250,000,000. It is true it is a splendidly built road, extending 1,800 miles, but I do not think it has sufficient traffic to pay for its axle grease. The question is, should that road be abandoned? There are many people who think it should, because it is a charge on public ownership. The old Grand Trunk, which by its contract undertook to operate the road, positively refused to do so, and the road is now thrown on

our hands. Should the Government or this Parliament decline to operate the road and let it fall into disuse? That is a very serious question. We have to face this fact: great vested interests have been created all along the line. Settlers by the hundreds of thousands have gone in there and are making their homes in the towns and villages that are being built up along the line, and to abandon the road would be a great hardship upon these people. It would therefore seem to be the desirable thing that this country should operate the road, but the road cannot be operated properly, except at an enormous annual deficit, The same remarks will apply very largely to the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was driven through tlie mountains at an enormous cost. This country has spent, I believe, no less than $400,000,000 or $500,000,000-let hon. gentlemen mark those figures-in unnecessary railroads paralleling each other in this country. Witness the tragedy between this city and the great city of Toronto. The old Grand Trunk, fifty or sixty years ago, had a monopoly of that territory. It had a double track between the two cities and was entitled to the traffic derived from that great territory. It was able to take care of all the traffic, but the territory has since with the consent of Parliament been invaded by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern. It is no wonder when you duplicate lines in this way that railroads do not pay, and that there is an annual deficit. All the railroads that we have taken over have been forced upon the country. We must have railroads. Transportation is almost as great a necessity as bread and butteTj and consequently these railroads must be kept in operation. The Government was faced with this position: These privately owned roads came to an end. The Grand Trunk refused to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific, and absolutely refused to take over the Transcontinental. What could the Government do? Could it allow the hun. dreds of thousands of people who had settled along these lines to go without railway service? Why, if that had been done, there would have been a rebellion in the country.


William Findlay Maclean: Give the road to the" Canadian Pacific.


Robert Lorne Richardson: We cannot afford to give it. to the Canadian Pacific. We have already given them hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government was faced with
[Mr. Richardson.I
this vital problem: It had either to take over these roads or let the country go without transportation. That is the tragedy of the situation. There was absolutely no other sensible course for the Government except to take these roads over. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to prattle about private ownership under public control, but we were faced with an issue, and that issue had to be met, and it was met in the only possible way it could be met. Hon. gentlemen will say, and they do say, and it is reiterated throughout the country, that we are piling up enormous deficits in the operation of these publicly-owned railroads. Surely we are. The deficit last year amounted, I understand, to $47,000,000. But let us remember that during all the years that have gone by, the people of Canada have continually contributed in bonuses and subsidies to keep these roads going. That policy of bonuses and subsidies went on for decades until the time came when the people would not stand for it any longer. I believe the feeling of the country was that they would sooner take over these roads and operate them themselves and know exactly what the deficit was. It is true we have this deficit, but that deficit, I repeat, is no greater than the amount it would otherwise be necessary for us to put up by way of bonuses or subsidies to keep these roads going. Let me say to those who denounce this deficit on the Canadian National railways that during the war the United States took over and operated the railways there, and their loss in operation during the war was almost one billion dollars. So we have not done so very badly in Canada. Now that we have the railways, il believe that we shall be able so to coordinate them, and bring about such vast economies in the running of freight and passengers trains and through the amalgamation of ticket and freight offices, that we ought to be able to make the roads pay.
While I am on my feet I want to say a word with reference to a proposed increase in freight rates. In the debate on the speech from the Throne I spoke on this subject, because I believed this Parliament should hesitate before authorizing or recommending any increase in freight rates. Let us look the conditions squarely in the face. The country has been loaded with an enormous railway liability. I believe that we have no less than $500,000,000 in value of roads that should never have been constructed.
The Transcontinental I have already alluded to. Is it a fair proposition that freight

rates should be increased in order to pay operating expenses on that vast capitalization? An enormous portion of that capitalization never should have been expended, and the users of these railroads, those who travel or send freight over them, would be obliged to pay these high freight rates if we granted the increase. Why .should a limited number of people be saddled with that cost? Are not the entire people responsible for the situation? I am not here to charge one political party or the other with responsibility; they are all to blame. I remember twenty or twenty-five years ago, when I sat on the Railway Committee day [DOT]after day as a .member, how the exploiters and those who wanted charters to build railroads in various parts of the country, brought their supporters to that committee and presented arguments in order to secure those charters. Only in rare instances did the promoters ever propose to build the railroads themselves. They intended to dispose of the charters, and Parliament, through its Railway Committee and of its own accord, for the last thirty years continued a policy that ha.s brought such a grief to the country in connection with the railway situation. The only cure is that we should take our medicine. Railing against one another in this matter will avail us nothing. We have all been responsible. Let us all take our medicine and realize-and the sooner the better-that an amount should be written off the public ledger in connection with public ownership sufficient to make up for the enormous expenditure in the duplication of railroads. The capitalization of the nationally-owned railways must be cut down to an amount which would just about, cover cost, if constructed under proper auspices. Then you are in this position. You need only charge freight rates sufficient to pay operating' expenses and interest on .a reasonable capitalization. Until the crack of doom I do not believe that in Canada we would be able to pay on our nationally-owned railways sufficient to take care of operating expenses and upkeep and the interest on the vast capitalization that never should have been put into this enterprise. We must start right if we are going to make a success of public ownership. With regard to increasing the freight rates, let me point out that if you increase the rates the Canadian Pacific Railway will get about two-thirds of the amount that will he collected. Does the Canadian Pacific Railway need this amount? Does it need an increase in freight rates? If you look at
their statement you will find that they have from one to two hundred millions in reserve-I think, to be accurate, it is one hundred and fifty million dollars. So that to give them an increase in freight rates would be but a tragedy to the people of the country. But if you grant an increase on the nationally owned railways you must grant it in connection with the Canadian Pacific. Is it not far better, in the interests of the whole people, that we should suffer a loss in the operation of our nationally owned system, as we must suffer a loss for the reasons I have advanced,- I say, is it not far better that we should suffer a loss of forty-seven millions a year than that we should increase the rates and thereby call upon the people to shoulder some $200,000,000 of a burden, the greater portion of which amount would go into the coffers of the Canadian Pacific Railway? This is an important question and one which hon. members should carefully consider, because an increase in freight rates would simply mean that you would pass on the cost to the people. Surely the people of the country are now just about taxed to the limit; and if you add such a vast amount as I suggest by way of an increase in freight rates it will only increase the burden of the people to an intolerable extent. It seems to me that under all the circumstances the people of Canada have reason to congratulate themselves at the present time on what has occurred. I believe that we are co-ordinating all these railway systems under one public management that will operate to the advantage of the system. I believe-and my belief is founded on observation-that this great system is steadily growing in favour and is improving all the time; and it is my conviction that we should encourage the nationally owned system of railroads. The time is not far distant, if we do so, when we shall have a system of which we can well be proud. I have not heard in this country during the last year or so, since the Canadian Northern was taken over, any charge that has been substantiated by reasonable evidence against the management of these publicly owned railroads. The president, Mr. Hanna, is very well known to me, and has lived in the West many years. He has told me, and has repeated in public, that no attempt has ever been made from any quarter, political or otherwise, to influence his appointments in connection with this great system. That is a highly important statement. It is true or it is not

true. If it is true I think the people of Canada have reason to he grateful that out of the railway chaos that has existed in this country for twenty or thirty years,, we at last have a reasonably efficient and honest administration in our nationally owned system. I believe we have reason to thank God. Look at what has been going on in connection with privately owned railroads. They have been one of the greatest debauching influences in this country for the last thirty or forty years. No one ever hears any talk about crooked work in connection with the railroads now, and I believe that is one result of public ownership.
Let me say in conclusion that I believe it is the solemn duty of the people of the country, and especially of the members of this House, who are supposed correctly to represent the feeling of the country, to stand loyally by the publicly owned system; for that is the only solution of an enormous difficulty. You will not get all that you may expect; the work may not be perfectly done. But if it is reasonably done, and if we have an honest and reasonably efficient administration, we shall have reason to be thankful. If we secure an honest administration we have reason, I reiterate, to be deeply thankful; and I believe that we have that administration at the present time. Members may talk about changing the system, but let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite-and as an old Liberal I sometimes feel rather sad to see many of my friends opposing this democratic principle of public ownership-that this system is the only one that will work in Canada today. There is no other solution for our railway problem, and if my hon. friends were in office to-morrow and undertook to hand over the administration of these now publicly owned railroads to private ownership they would meet with a storm of indignation and opposition throughout the country such as they could not withstand. You may just as well make up your mind that public ownership in Canada has come to stay. Let us realize that fact and aim at securing the best, the most honest, and the most efficient administration in connection with that system. That, and only that, is the policy that is sure of success in this Dominion.


Onésiphore Turgeon: It being practically six o'clock, Mt. Chairman, I would ask that the committee rise.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 180, respecting Dominion Trust Company.-(Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 192 (from the Senate), to incorporate Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill No. 51, respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Emerson Fox.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 185 (from the Senate), for the relief of Graziano Bertini.-Mr. Pedlow.
Bill No. 186 (from the Senate) for the relief of William Henry Caswell.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 187 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Covert.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 188 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ireland.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 189 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Daniel Mills.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 190 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Aimee Wilfrid David.- Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 191 (from the Senate), for the relief of Richard Simpson.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 193 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nora Dowle.-Mr. Douglas (Strath-cona).

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
['I shall be glad to give the hon. member any information that I can, that is (as regards the fiscal year which has closed. I think that is what the hon. member wishes-not anything in reference to any contract that is in effect at the present time.\nResolutions reported.']
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 114 of the Railway Estimates- Canadian Government Railways-$6,321,-194.-and Mr. Turgeon had the floor.
Mr. TURGiEON:	I intend that the few
remarks I deem it my duty to make this evening shall be more suggestive than critical. From a sense of duty I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to a question that is of vital interest not only to myself and the people whom I represent in this House but as well, I believe, to the whole population of Canada. A short time ago, when the minister presented his annual statement with respect to the Government system of railways, the astounding revelation was made to us that the deficit on those railways amounted to $47,000,000. In the same period of time the Canadian (Pacific Railway Company were able to show a surplus of $32,000,000.

It is apparent, therefore, that given the same efficient management and the same close attention as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Government system instead of having a deficit of $47,000,000 would have had a surplus of $30,000,000. The deficit on the Intercolonial railway amounted to four and a half millions, something unprecedented in the history of that road in the long period which has elapsed since Confederation. If we compare the operations of the Intercolonial with those of other railways we are forced to the conviction that the adverse showing of the Intercolonial is four hundred per cent larger than it should have been. I do not intend to saddle the men who are at the head of that railway with the entire responsibility for this, or say that they should be dismissed on the ground of inefficiency. But I do maintain that there is good reason for asking the Railway Commission, through this Parliament, to be very careful and ponder well over the situation before they decide upon sanctioning an increase of rates on the Canadian railroads at the present time. A short time ago I saw a statement in the press-whether it was authorized or not I cannot say-to the effect that the chairman of the Railway Commission had stated that it was most likely ere long that the railway rates in Canada would be increased. That statement has had the effect of forcing public opinion in Canada to study the question of freight rates which hitherto it has not done. In former times when there was a deficit on the Intercolonial of from $200,000 to $500,000 people in the upper provinces-more particularly those in Ontario-were wont to raise a great outcry, those deficits, -according to the Drayton-Acworth report, having reached a total of $10,000,000 in the course of twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. The administration of the Intercolonial at that time was criticised because the people referred to claimed that the railway was controlled by political agencies in the Maritime Provinces and more particularly in the province of Quebec. But, if we compare the management of the Intercolonial under the Liberal regime- under ministers like Mr. Blair, Mr. Emmer-son and Mr. IGraham-when it was no uncommon thing to have a surplus it does not seem logical to throw stones at Government operation. What a contrast it presents to the unfortunate financial results we now see under management by a commission which is supposed to be untrammeled-or at any rate Jess influenced- by the politicians of the country. The question of freight rates is a very important one in this country, particularly when we have regard to the extent of our territory and the distance that our products must travel before they reach the ocean ports through which they are shipped to European countries. Again, products which are brought to this country have to be transported thousand of miles from the coast before they reach the consumers of the West. Then, we have a country to the soutih which has a population thirteen times as large as the population of -Canada, and the wealth of which is twenty or twenty-five times greater than the wealth of Canada. Moreover, their natural facilities for the transportation of their western products are superior in many ways to ours. The United -States -are making every possible effort to reduce freight rates-particularly on those railroads which carry the wheat and other grains of the western states to ocean ports-in order that their farmers may get the greatest benefit from the markets of the world. They are making every effort to transport their products by water instead of by rail, in order to secure the advantage which would naturally accrue therefrom to their producers. It is time that Canada considered this question, not from any political standpoint but from the vital national standpoint, in order to bring about the most advantageous results for our producers, whether they be farmers or manufacturers. I have always advocated the Government control and operation of railroads. But I will tell the minister, if he will listen to me for a few moments, what, in my opinion, is the chief purpose of Government operation. Those who have advocated the Government operation of railways during the last five or six years have naturally claimed that such operation is necessarily in the interests of the people. Private operation is for the benefit of a few moneyholders whose chief object is to make profit in the construction and operation of railroads. On the other hand, Government operation is not for profit, it is for the benefit of all the people; its purpose is not to create surpluses, but to give the people of the country the best possible service at the lowest possible rate. Our railroads; they have been acquired -by the Government not so much because of the adoption of the principle of public ownership, but because their acquirement was a matter of necessity. I have opposed some

of these measures of Government acquisition not with reference to the principle of public ownership, but because I thought that the bargains were not in the interest of the country at the time. But now we [DOT]have these railroads and it is in the interest of the people at large to do the best that can he done under the circumstances, and to see that the railroads give the best possible service at the lowest possible rates so that the producers of this country may have no less advantage so far as freight rates are concerned than the producers in the great republic to 'the south. The shippers of the United States are appearing before the Interstate. Commerce Commission and trying to get the lowest rate that they can for their produce, because when the shipper obtains a lower rate, his advantage on the market is enhanced. Freight rate is like tariff; it- attaches itself to everything that it touches. It is more particularly in the interests of the real producers, the farmers, that jwe must give consideration to this question of rates. It is raw materials that are particularly affected 'by the tariff. We have 'been decrying the great corporations, the railway corporations, for having been plunderers of the people. It has often been said *that they are charging excessive prices and making immense dividends, more than they have a right to make. Under present circumstances we have the fact that under the paternalism of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company better results are attained than under the Board' of Management of the Canadian National railways. It is said at once: Let us Taise the railway rates-I am speaking now of freight rates; on a later occasion I shall make a few remarks with regard to passenger rates. I am opposed to an increase of rates at any time, because if the rates are increased now they cannot be decreased in the future. At all events, years would have to roll by before any decrease .could be effected, and in the meantime the commerce of the country would be ruined. Some years ago an increase of ten per cent in freight rates was effected and subsequent increases were made to the extent of twenty-five per cent altogether, I believe. But they have not lately been increased, and now we are asked, simply because the Board of Management of the Canadian National railways has shown a deficit of $47,000,000, to increase the rates to cover that deficit. This increase the people of Canada would have to pay. Moreover, the Tates on the Canadian Pacific would also be increased, and instead, of com-

ing annually before their shareholders with a surplus of $32,000,000, the Canadian Pacific would show a surplus on operation of $62,000,000-and you could not blame them. I ask this Parliament and the people of this country: Why penalize the users of the Canadian Pacific in those parts of the country where they have no other means of transporting their products in order to cover a deficit on another 15,000 miles of railway? We have to be consistent and very serious in this matter. What will become of the farmers of the West if their grain, once it has reached o.ur ports, .such a great distance away, has already cost the five or six or seven cents more than the rates paid by the farmers of the American West for their grain? How will they be able to make up the difference? It will be a 'loss to them completely. Therefore, before we increase the rates,,we must at least give the National Railways Commission the rest of this year to see, according to 'their personal ability or inability, what statement they will bring before the Government and Parliament next session, when it will be time enough to increase the rates. If we increase the rates now, they might come back again next year still with a deficit, and follow the same procedure and increase the rates from year to year in order to meet deficits brought about through mismanagement by incompetent men or men iwho may not have the necessary command of the business to bring the railways of this country into the position in which they should be. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be no increase in freight rates during at least the present calendar year, after which we shall have the report of that board. We would have that report next January, and the session should be called at least by that time, so that we would then have more knowledge and information as to the reason why they come again with a deficit, if they do, and as I am much .afraid they will. It is 'more particularly for that reason that I have spoken, because I know there are in this country industries that could not stand any further increase in regard to certain of their manufactured products.
As 'I said, we must understand that freight follows every article. Before pig iron can be produced in Sydney, freight has been paid out on coal, iron ore, limestone and everything else necessary in the production of that pig iron. Then, it may be sent in the form of billets or blooms to the manufacturer in Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere, .and freight has to be paid on that again. Then, when 'the manufacturer

has made his farm implements and sends them to Winnipeg or Edmonton, another freight rate is paid, the rate being increased on account of the additional material that enters into the .product. Therefore, every time that the article is shipped from the time it originally leaves the mine until as a manufactured article it reaches the consumer or final user, there is an increase in freight rates. Therefore, an increase of freight rates of another 25 per cent would *at once increase the price of the farm implement or other manufactured article in the same proportion.
National railways we have and National railways we wish to keep. But in certain quarters there is a fear that, after we have increased the rates from year to year and made them so that a private company can make millions and come back as conquerers of the people, after our national railroads have beep improved and better equipped through Parliament's yearly votes of money -which I am willing to vote to the Minister of Railways-it may be that those old railroad magnates who are still living in the country may possibly decide that they will seek to take back these railroads and run them for their own benefits.
In this connection the Minister Of Railways (Mr. Reid) with his usual good will, I hope, will permit me to make some suggestions which are, perhaps, not all of my own creation, but which are in the public mind of the people of the Maritime Provinces and, no doubt, of other districts of our extensive country. The minister has spoken to-day of the personnel of the commission; he has spoken of Mr. Banna, against whom I have nothing to say. I had occasion once in my life to meet him with some of my colleagues, and he was very courteous on that occasion, but that is all I know of him except that nothing resulted from our suggestions. I will, however, make the same suggestion to any one who is on that commission. When the commission was created and the personnel was to be chosen, the then hon. member for Kamouraska, now the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) suggested that on that commission thefe .should be at least one man or two from the ranks of labour to represent the labour element and to give the benefit of their experience in the management of the railway. That suggestion was treated with scorn by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who was in charge of the Bill at that time. No labour representative has been put on the commission, and after a year's experience, we have the result of $47,000,000 of a deficit. There were many reasons for the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) that labour should be represented, one idea being not only for the sake of representation as a matter of pride, but in order that the benefit of the experience of the labour representative in the management more particularly of labour should be given to the administration. The Minister of Railways, when he made his statement and showed the conditions and reasons for that deficit, attributed it all to the increase in wages, and he told ns that out of every dollar spent for administration during the year 84 cents went for labour. The Canadian Pacific, in making a report, gave the amount of their labour cost at 77 per cent. Who knows if one of the labour element on the railway, with his experience, more particularly of labour, knowing where it can be of best service and how to save money from day to day and from hour to hour during the day, would have been the author of a saving of millions of dollars by the proper distribution of labour which, under incompetent management, is often used with no results? That, no doubt, was the reason for the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe), and it was the idea which animated me when I voted for his motion at that time. It has already been confirmed by great railway authorities who have been studying the railway problem in the United States, when a year or so ago the United States Government were considering whether they should return the railroads to private corporations or keep them under their own operation. In this connection I wish to quote from a report made by one of the members of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States, and which was published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in the month of November last, just a few months after my hon. friend from Quebec East had made his suggestion to this Government, i quote from page 86 of that report:
At present the labour question is a most important phase of the railroad problem. Industrial warfare upon the railroads spells ruin. It is more than a question of strikes. Every one knows that the country cannot long endure ar- stoppage in its transportation arteries, but not every one realizes how closely the furnishing of good service at reasonable rates is hound up with loyal co-operation between the men and the management. It is but one aspect of the question which is agitating the whole world at the present time, how to secure whole-hearted, willing work and increase production. Labour is fast coming to realize that increases in wages may not of themselves achieve desired results.
420G

So it was no innovation that the hon. member lor Quebec East was suggesting when he said we should have at least one, if not two, labour representatives on that board. The greatest railroad authority in the United States, which has hundreds of thousands of miles of railways to our few thousands, came to the conclusion after years of study of railway problems that if the Government retained control of the Toads labour representatives would be appointed on the various boards throughout the country. The same author also suggested that if the railroads were run by the private corporations, similar provision should be made for the representation of labour with a view to greater efficiency and, better results. In view of the necessity of making every possible effort to keep our expenses down to where they are now, and the necessity of urging the board as a last resort for our life to make every possible effort to reduce the expenses of management, we believe that the management in Canada should include at least one or two labour representatives, whose experience would be of great benefit in the administration of the roads.
There is another suggestion I have to make to the minister, and it is with reference to the establishment of divisions for the conduct of the operations of the National railways in Canada. Public opinion in the Maritime Provinces, and I am sure in many other parts of Canada, is in favour of divisional points being established. From our national ports on the Atlantic which are open during the winter our railways cover a territory of from 3,000 to 4,000 miles to the Pacific coast, and it is impossible for one body in the centre of the country, say Toronto, to be intimately aware of the needs of shippers and users of the railways from one end of the country to the other. The Interstate Commerce Commission has created a number of subdivisions, which give the shippers and users of the roads in these different divisions a certain degree of home rule in the administration and direction of the roads, instead of having the whole administration centralized in Washington. I think it would be a good thing to adopt the same practice in this country. A year or so ago at the time of the formation of this board, the people of the Maritime Provinces appealed to the minister to establish a board in the city of Moncton which would look after matters particularly pertaining to the Maritime Provinces. Moncton up to recently has been the centre of the administration of 
the Intercolonial railway. It is a centre also of a large number of interests of a common nature, and if a board were established there, it would be able to look after such matters as freight rates from one local point to another-which would depend upon the nature of the product,-and demurrage questions which arise at every moment and which, under present conditions, can be settled only with difficulty and loss of time. If a board were established at Moncton every shipper in the Maritime Provinces who had a grievance, imaginary or Teal, would be able to have his case considered by men who were more familiar with conditions in that part of the country than any central board could possibly be. It takes weeks and months to have these matters adjusted now by the organization in Toronto.
I participate in the deserved eulogy which the minister has expressed on behalf of Mr. Hayes. I would prefer, however, that Mr. Hayes had been left in Moncton. He knew ' the conditions of the provinces intimately and was thoroughly familiar with the needs of the shippers and users of the roads in the Maritime Provinces. Might I therefore suggest that the minister create a divisional point and a local board at Moncton. And not only at Moncton but at Montreal, and at Winnipeg or Edmonton, or both, so that shippers and users of the road could have their difficulties adjusted without loss of time. These matters now take as long to adjust as if they were matters of diplomacy between the governments represented on the League of Nations. Would the minister permit me in this connection to refer also to the statement made by another member of the Interstate Commission on this question, which will also be found in The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science. Mr. Max Thelen, Director of Public Service, United States Railroad Administration, during the war established a division of public service for the purpose of providing that whatever action might be taken by the Central Railroad Administration at Washington affecting the interest of the travelling or shipping public, the public point of view should receive full consideration. This is a recognition of the fact that the first duty of transportation systems is to give to the public satisfactory service at a reasonable rate. For this special purpose the American Railroad Administration has established a series of freight traffic committees -what I would call local offices-in various sections of the country to which the ship-

pers as well as the traffic officers of the carriers might appeal for adjustment of freight rates. I do not think we see much of that in the administration of our Canadian National railways.
There are certain manufactures in New Brunswick in the carrying of which the Government railway cannot compete with the Canadian Pacific. The Government railway taking certain products from northern New Brunswick to the state of Maine has to travel a distance of some 125 miles more before the same connection can be made as the Canadian Pacific railway makes from St. John, and some adjustment ought to be made in this direction in the interest of the public as well as of the road itself. We should 9 p.m. do everything possible to increase the traffic on the road Trade begets trade, and if you open an artery in one direction there will soon be an increase of trade all round; you not only increase the traffic on one particular road but generally. I think that there should be some special branch of the railway management charged with the duty of considering the representations that are made by the public and of seeing to it that complaints from the people in regard to the operation of the railways receive prompt and courteous attention. If there were something of that kind a great deal of trouble would be avoided and the operations of the railways would be much more satisfactory to the people at large. We are asking for greater production, and we should realize that production requires the freest and cheapest possible channels to the various markets of the world. It is only by removing every possible obstacle in the channels of trade that you can make trade profitable and increase traffic. The grain market more particularly is controlled by Liverpool-especially was this the case in normal times. Now, the Government will not always control the wheat of this country. In a short time this product will necessarily have to take the ordinary course of supply and demand the same as other products, and we must therefore prepare for the conditions in traffic that may arise when that happens. If I had the gift of my leader I would call the attention of the House with proper emphasis to this fact, that I, as representing a maritime constituency of some importance am anxious to see the fullest co-operation between the East and the West, because I realize that the interests of East and West are interdependent. The prosperity of the
West contributes to the greater prosperity of the East, and the East should also serve the West. We have been favoured with splendid seaports, and every article that is produced in the West has either to go through the East or go by way of the United States, and the question is whether the products of Western Canada in the future will go through American channels instead of taking their natural course through the Canadian sea ports of St. John, Halifax and Quebec. The minister said to-day that the shippers and producers and the railway magnates of the United States were fighting on the question of lower rates. Well, I would point out that it is necessary for us to have such freight rates in this country as will enable Canadian industry to be properly developed. It is contended that an increase in rates will benefit the Canadian Pacific railway to the extent of some sixty million dollars.
I do not think that it would be advisable to increase the freight rates at this time. Let the railway management wait for another year, and when they have seen what discrepancy there may be between the operations of last year and the current year they will then be in a better position to judge as to whether freight rates should be increased or not. I do not think the present is an opportune time to increase them; but without any desire to criticise the administration unduly, I suggest that they should give the country more substantial evidence of their capacity and their efficiency than they have so far shown. I would suggest that they be given another year, and we shall then be able to estimate their ability, and Parliament will be able to pronounce as to their efficiency or otherwise. I am, and have always been, in favour of government control, and now that we have these roads we must see that they are operated in such a manner p s to reflect credit on the principle of public ownership.
I shall now say a few words in regard to passenger rates, and I may remark that there is a great difference between passenger rates and freight rates. Freight rates affect the whole people, but passenger rates are not so far reaching in their effect; they affect the individual, whether he travels for pleasure or on business. While I am unalterably opposed to increased freight rates at the present time, I would be prepared under conditions as they are to give some consideration to the question of increasing passenger rates. The Canadian Pacific railway say, notwithstanding the

Edward Island. To such an extent was that the case last winter that a great congestion of traffic prevailed from time to time on either side of the Straits. So great a rush of business was there, in fact, that the ferry was not able to carry over the cars fast enough, and was obliged to concentrate on the freight, allowing the mails and passengers to remain over at Sackville for whole nights.
Now let me say a word or two about the steamer itself. So far as I have been able to gather, the Prince Edwardi Island at the time she was put into commission was the most powerful steamer of her class and kind that had been built up to that date, and .the greatest ice-breaker. In view of the tremendous increase in traffic, and of the inability of the car ferry at times to handle the freight whiqh offers, the people of Prince Edward Island are now convinced that another car ferry is required. I believe that the Minister of Railways has made arrangements whereby a steamer will be provided so that the car ferry can go into dry dock and undergo that over-hauling and repairing which she certainly must need from year to year after battling with the ice all winter. The people of.Prince Edward Island, however, are convinced) that an additional car ferry should be provided, of equal proportions, strength, and capacity, with the present car ferry, so that there may be no interruption in the service.
The present car ferry is equipped with a double line of rails, capable of accommodating six Intercolonial cars on each track, so that twelve cars can be transported at one time across the Straits. These cars now run from Charlottetown or Summerside, and are then carried across the Straits on the ferry; but from the outlying districts of Prince Edward Island freight must be transferred from the narrow gauge to the broad) gauge either at Summerside, Charlottetown, or Borden. Before the road was standardized down to Borden from either side all freight had to be transferred at tha/t point. What we want in addition to the car ferry is to have the standardization of the road completed as soon as possible; then we would be part of the mainland more completely than ever. Passengers from any station in Prince Edward Island, from the extreme east or the extreme west, could take their seats in the cars and journey without interruption or Change to any part of Canada, virtually to any part of the North American continent. That is our desire; that is what we have been yearning for, working for
[Mr Mclsaac.]
and agitating for. A good beginning has been made, and I am here to bear testimony to what has been done and to thank the Government for their efforts in that behalf. I desire to impress upon the Minister of Railways and the Government the ardent desire, the perpetual yearning, of our people that the standardization of the Prince Edward Island railway be completed in order that we may have unbroken connection with the mainland from any part of the Island, as regards passengers as well as freight. Many perishable products such as fruit and fish cannot successfully be transported unless we have that through service; for these reasons we are, as- you can readily understand, most desirous that this work be finished with all possible expedition.
Now, I wish to say a word with regard to the railway terminals at Georgetown in Kings county, and the necessity for having them kept in order and maintained in the best possible condition. Freight is landed there from coastwise steamers, and this freight can be borne away by the railway cars if the line is kept in good condition right down to the wharf.
There is another suggestion that I wish to make,-and I do not wish the minister or any one to consider that it is in any way chimerical. Georgetown harbour is one of the very best on the North Atlantic coast; I am sure that what I say in that regard will be corroborated by those who have any acquaintance with conditions there. Now, this is what I wish to put forward, and I assure hon. members that it ia not impracticable. At present all passengers and freight leaving the Island go by the Borden route, which is in the western part of the Province. Formerly we had siteamers crossing from Charlottetown to Pictou, but this service has been discontinued. The ports in the eastern part of the province, and those places which are in the vicinity of Souris, Georgetown and Murray harbour, are quite close to the mainland of Nova Scotia. But all traffic, from that part of the province destined for Eastern Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and Newfoundland, has to proceed all the way to Charlottetown, thenoe to Borden and, after being transferred to the car ferry, take the rail route on the other side and all the way around opposite and beyond the point of its departure, to its destination. I feel satisfied, having Tegard to the growth of trade and the increase of production in Prince Edward Island since we have had the oar ferry, that the day will come-and

is not so far distant-when the business of the Island will be sufficient to sustain a car ferry service between Georgetown and Pictou, the car ferry being used to ply between these points during the summer. It would not be so difficult to create terminals at Georgetown where the car ferry formerly docked. What I have in mind is this: that during the summer months a car ferry, in addition to the one operating at Borden, might ply between Georgetown and Pictou. It is not unreasonable that we should have more than one point of departure from Prince Edward Island. Indeed, that was formerly the case, for we had boats for the mainland leaving both Charlottetown and Summerside; now, we have but one point of departure. If we had a point of departure at Georgetown for the east and the other at Borden as at present, the freight from each of the different sections of the Island would find the shortest and most natural outlet. Freight leaving Georgetown would go to Pictou and find a short and1 convenient route to its destination in Eastern Nova Scotia, Gape Breton or Newfoundland. The same applies to passengers. My idea is that the second car ferry would ply between Georgetown and Pictou in the summer and that during the winter both car ferries should operate at the capes, one leaving one side of the straits at the same time that the other left the opposite side. In case of any accident-and accidents are liable to happen in those tremendous ice floes-there would always be a steamer available to prevent the tieing up of traffic for any considerable length of time. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that if this plan was carried out the traffic to and from Prince Edward Island would be so great that some of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine would call at Georgetown as well as at- Charlottetown, and these argosies, bearing the products of our province, would go to all parts of the world from this, one of the greatest harbours oni the North Atlantic. In brief, these are the principal things that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways.
There may be some hon. members who have not visited Prince Edward Island and who have no idea of what kind of province we have. Those who have visited the Island in the summer season are quite satisfied, I am sure, that no place on the North American continent is more desirable, at least at that time of the year. I believe that the Minister of Railways hesitated when we 268
first urged upon him the necessity of commencing the standardization of the Prince Edward Island railway. But he visited the Island and although his visit was .a brief one I am sure that the very appearance of things as he found them on that occasion induced him to commence the standardization of the road when he did. I would be oleased if other members of the House who have not visited our province would make an excursion there and see it for themselves. I would like them to see the Island in the summer when the crons are almost ready for harvest, when the fruit is ripening, the grass is greenest and the other products of farm and fipld are in their most attractive state. All these things we produce-fruit, grain, roots,-and men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: And women too.


Mr. McISAAC:: Yes, the women are always included; I simply used the general term, and my remark seems to have been well received. You will find men of Prance Edward Island all over this American continent, wherever you go, holding positions of honour, emolument, importance and responsibility. You will find them in 'Church and State; you will find them in all parts of the continent from coast to coast. You will find them in the highest positions of the judiciary, in the highest positions of the learned professions, at the head of more than one great university on this continent, whether in the United States or in Canada. A province that can produce such wonderful agricultural products, such horses as we produce down there, and such men as I have been discussing, is surely deserving of the most serious and earnest consideration of the Government.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta):: Have you any women down there?


James McIsaac: We have; the best and noblest women in this broad Dominion. I am serious in what I say, and I do not wish any honourable member to think I am drawing on my imagination. If some of my hon. friends should have the good fortune and judgment to visit Prince Edward Island and see for themselves they would be convinced as well as I am. I 'shall not pursue the case further for the moment. I *wish simply to impress most earnestly upon the minister the great importance of carrying out these matters whi'dh are so necessary to us at the earliest possible date that he may find (himself able to give them attention.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like the hon. member if possible to make a few remarks in French.


James McIsaac: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) wishes me to say a few words in French, but, unfortunately for me, my colloquial knowledge of this language is extremely limited, and I fear, if I attempt to say a few words, that I will only cause laughter. However, the subject I have treated is so near to my heart, so important and so necessary to my province, that I shall risk making a short speech, though it may be full of mistakes. I think, Mr. President, that there are some hon. members, on the other side of the House, who have already visited my province, and I hope that o'hers, all, if possible, will come on a visit, whether it be on an excursion or on a pilgrimage, as you please.


James Alexander Robb: Before the minister replies,so as to economize time, I rise just to remind him that at a previous session I asked him for some information as to mail contracts: throughout Canada. If .the minister has the information, which I imagine may be somewhat lengthy, perhaps by unanimous consent it might be arranged to place it upon Hansard so that we would be able to see it to-morrow. That would be quite satisfactory.
Mr. J. D. REID (Rising).


Mr. LEMIEUX:: lls my hon. friend going to give a partial answer only?


John Dowsley Reid: It will take me only a minute to answer the hon. member (Mr. Robb), and then I will answer other hon. members.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have something to say about the railway situation, and if my hon. friend is agreeable, I shall not be long and he will thus have the whole case before the committee and can make a general answer.
Mr.	J. D. REID:	Yes. The
only thing I wanted to say before I answered' the other hon. members was this. My hon. friend (Mr. Robb) asked me two questions in a previous debate, first the amount paid to each transportation company for the carrying of mail from Halifax, St. John, N.B., Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, West, and in the case of all except Halifax, also to points East. I have the reply to that question, and as it covers two pages, II should like, with the unanimous consent of the com-
mittee, to place it on Hansard. My hon. friend also asked me the mileage of branch lines in this year's Bill, that is the Bill that went through the House, and I promised to have that answer and also put it on Hansard. The mileage of the Branch Lines referred to is as folows:	.
Miles.
Prince Albert northerly	 50
Maryfield extension (From Ben- _ gough)	   155
From point on main line between crossing of North Saskatchewan river and Radisson northerly to _ point near Meeting lake	 '50
Total	155
Preliminary surveys have been made and the approximate cost is $35,000 per mile. Complete surveys are being gone on with and when completed final estimates of the cost will be prepared.
Each of these sections have been settled for a considerable time, and a great deal of the land is already under cultivation, and particularly so in the case of the Prince Albert north line, a lot of returned men have taken up land on the assurance that the line would be built. The 'Country is splendid for mixed farming, and at present is absolutely without railway facilities. That is the information the hon. member wants.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is very unusual,
to allow any document to be printed in Hansard unless it has been read' in the House; but under the circumstances, the committee may give its unanimous consent. I now ask: Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that this document be placed upon Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the answer to my hon. friend's first question:
Expenditure-On account of Railway Mail Service, Tear ended 31st March, 1920.
Alberta and Great Waterways
Algoma Central	
Algoma Eastern	
Atlantic, Quebec and Western
Boston and Maine	
British Columbia Electric.. .. Canada and Gulf Terminal. .
Canadian Government	
Canadian National	
Canadian Pacific	
Cape Breton Electric	
Caraquet and Gulf Shore.. ..
Central Canada	
Central Vermont	
.$	1,062	84.	2,619	12.	1,228	56.	7,113	08.	4,014	46.	5,599	57.	1,971	90(a)	473,525 56(b)	372,441 66. . 1,762,362 97 . .	2,369	68.. 1,111 20 . .	391	88. .	6,998	64
Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake
Erie	 [DOT]	446 12
Dominion Atlantic	 31,23637
Dominion Coal and Railway.. ..	992 24
Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia	
3,333 44

Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal
and Railway	
879	20Galt, Preston and Hespeler.. ..	929	44Grand Trunk Railway	
553,419	21Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ..	145,199	00Great Northern	
8,354	00Hamilton and Dundas	
248	00Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville	
749	75Hamilton Radial	
238	14Hull Electric	
1,60000International	
557	00Inverness Railway and Coal.. ..	3,447	72Kent Northern	
715	28Kettle Valley	
9,766	18Kitchener and Northern	
230	00London and Port Stanley	
2,516	76Lotbiniere and Megantic	
1,305	60Maine Central	
2,971	00Maritime Coal and Railway,. ..	602	88Michigan Central	
54,845	72Montreal and Southern Counties.	227	12Napierville Junction	
3,451	65Nelson and Fort Sheppard	
1,49952New Brunswick Coal and Railway	1,456	96New Westminster and Southern.	3,667	57New York Central	
8,240	50Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto	
495	29Northern Pacific	
4,326	40Pacific Great Eastern	
1,399	65Pere Marquette	
13,856	58Port Arthur Electric	
350	00Quebec Central	
33,233	04Quebec, Montreal and Southern..	5,722	72Quebec Oriental	
7,819	92Quebec, Railway, Light and Power	3[620	00Quebec and Saguenay	
920	64Red Mountain	
251	20Roberval and Saguenay	
704	48St. John Bridge and Railway Extension	
50000Sandwich, Windsor and Amherst- burS	
1,806	46Sydney and Louisburg	
1,004	80Temiscouata	
' 6,233 74Temiskaming and Northern Ontario	
24,263	44Thousand Islands	
6 52 80Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo..	4,466	85Toronto Suburban	
10000Toronto and York Radial	
4,206	84Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern.	3,366	03
Vancouver, Westminster and
Yukon	
2,144	86Victoria and Sidney	35	11Wellington Colleries	
340	26Windsor, Essex and Lake Shore.	967	12TotaI	$3,608,745 71(a)	Comprising Intercolonial Railway_P.E.
Island Railway-Grand Trunk Pacific east of Winnipeg and smaller subsidiary lines.
(b)	Comprising Canadian Northern Railway and smaller subsidiary lines.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir,-Why should the fishermen on the Gaspe coast he discriminated against on their shipments of fresh fish, when competing with Halifax shipments ?
Owing to our long and close relations with the Gaspe coast, we feel the matter should be placed before the public. Perhaps it may be one of the many reasons why the railways are losing so much money.
As is well known, shipments of fresh fish are sent by express, it being necessary to get them on the market as fresh as possible. The Nova Scotian fishermen, shipping through large firms, are charged on the nett weight only, whilst the Gaspe fishermen are charged on the gross weight; in other words, the Gaspe fishermen pay for 25 per cent more weight.
Thus a shipment of fresh fish from Halifax, say, to Toronto, of 10,000 lbs. of fish, would be charged $1.75 per 100 lbs. on 10,000 lbs., whilst the same shipment when shipped from the Gaspe coast would have to pay on 12,500 lbs. weight. The rate from Montreal to Toronto is $1.50 per 100 lbs. the distance from Halifax to Toronto about 1,100 miles, and from Montreal to Toronto about 340 miles. The difference in the weight means that, to ship 1,100 miles, costs less than to ship 340 miles. In other words, from Halifax the fresh fish Is carried about 750 miles for nothing.
Now this discrimination is, to our mind, unconstitutional, as well as illegal. No public carrying company has the right to make one firm pay on 10,000 lbs. and then turn around and make another firm pay on 12,600 lbs. on identically the same class of goods, with identically the same weight.
Is it to be supposed the Railway Commissioners are not aware of this underhand competition? We can hardly think they would countenance such an unjust proceeding against the fishermen of the Gaspe coast, who have to work just as hard as the Nova Scotian fishermen to make a living.
The next question is: Does the Minister of Railways know of it? It is evident some one is at the bottom of it, but who? One thing is certain, the fishermen on the Gaspe coast, when they learn how they are handicapped, will want to have it changed.
Cheap food is a great necessity these days, and everything should be done to put competition on a fair footing and show no favor, so that prices may be kept down to reasonable figures.
I call the attention of 'the Minister of Railways to this discriminatory rate which exists as between the coast of Gaspe and Nova Scotia. I stated a moment ago that the reason why the railway situation in that district was at a low ebb was due to the original interference of 'the great fish firm of Robin. Quite a change has -taken place since the completion of the railway in 1910. When I was elected for the county of Gaspe in 1896 I met not tens tout hundreds of people on the coast who never had seen a Ted cent in their lives. They were paid in effects toy the firm. There were thousands of my electors who had never travelled even as far as New Brunswick. The town of Camptoellton, the town of Dalhousie across

the bay, were mere geographical expressions to them, because they had no means of transportation. They were kept undter the yoke by the powerful firm, just as the trappers in the West were kept under the yoke of the Hudson Bay Company in days gone by. The situation has changed and to-day I can say that I represent a free community. But in 1896 'they were not free and independent electors. They were not free subjects of His Majesty the King. There is a book which some day will he written on the relations of that big firm with the fishermen of 'Gaspe. It is said that reality is sometimes stranger than fiction. No one knows the misery that was endured toy the fishermen of the Gaspe coast. As far back as the Conquest in 1759, because that firm came from Jersey about the time of the Conquest, it practically owned the land and the sea; indeed it owned the people. Transportation and commerce is after all the great avenue of civilization, and the construction of a railway in the 'Gaspe peninsula has been the means of bringing that population within the confines of civilization. I am proud to say that I represent to-day a highly educated population-I mean highly educated in so far as elementary education is understood. We have schools, we have convents, we have' high schools. We have to-day a fine hardy 'type of Canadian on the coast- of Gaspe. I 'say to the Government in all sincerity: Complete that work, take over that railway and make it a part of the National Railways system, where it belongs, and where it was intended to toe from the beginning at the 'time of Confederation. Then, 'Sir, the Government of the day will have done its duty towards one of the most remarkable sections of the Dominion, rich beyond de.-scription of natural wealth. I speak this evening as a Canadian, and I say it is not pleasant to find that big American firms have laid their hands on the peninsula of iGaspe. They are doing it on the quiet. They are taking our natural resources. Yes, American companies and syndicates are operating and exploiting the resources of that fine territory. I say to the Government it is within their power to give our people the rights which appertain to them ias members of the great Canadian family.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before speaking in English, I wish to say a few words in French on the subject of the railway situated in my constituency. I regret very much my inability to speak fluently the French language. I beg therefore to be excused if I continue my remarks in English.
Several ihon. MEMBERS: (Translation): Hear, hear.


William Stewart Loggie: I take this opportunity,
and I do it with some pleasure, of referring to the first speech that I made in Parliament. The theme of that speech was the construction of a branch line railway starting at Newcastle, N. B., and ending at Tracadie in the county of my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). Let me first of all point out that Newcastle is a point on the main line of the Intercolonial forty miles south from Bathurst. At the present time there is what is known as the Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway,

starting at Bathurst and running like a half moon, if you like to say so, about sixty miles down to Tracadie, following the course of the Baie de Chaleur and then going through the peninsula and ending at Tracadie. The line that is asked for proposes to start at Tracadie and end at Newcastle. Thus you will have a half moon, as it were, of railway commencing at Bathurst running east around the coast back on the other coast, and then ending at Newcastle, N.B. I take this opportunity of reminding the minister that he has a petition in his office from the residents of the thriving villages that are located between Newcastle and Tracadie. From time to time it has been my privilege as well as my duty to draw the attention of the department to this very important project of railway construction. [During the last two or three years I have not urged it, as we were not investing any money in building branch lines of railways, in the East at any rate. It seems to me, however, that the time is now very opportune to impress upon the minister the importance of the construction of these few miles of railway. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in the Estimates some two years ago $200,000 was provided for the taking over of the branch line of railway that runs between Bathurst and Tracadie. The rumour now is that the owners of the railway-who at that time refused to accept an offer for it-are now willing and ready to sell, and I hope for good news in that regard from the minister in the near future. I desire to point out to him that the piece of road which he proposes to take over will not be complete until he extends it to Newcastle.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought it was complete when I took it over.


William Stewart Loggie: I have this duty devolving upon me representing a fishing constituency-


Mr. DUFF:: Hear, hear.


William Stewart Loggie: -and also representing an agricultural constituency ias well as one that is very largely interested in the lumbering business. If one starts at Newcastle the first lumber mill encountered will be the Buckley mill. Going down three miles you come to the Miramichi Lumber Company's mill-a large band mill cutting a great quantity of lumber. Going about a mile farther you come to the Frasers Pulp Mill, Limited, and then farther down the coast you touch at Tahusintac and Burnt Church

where there are lumber mills. In the winter season the bay abounds with fish. We are acting wisely in providing branch lines in the Prairie Provinces, so that the farmers can haul their wheat to the railway. But let me tell you that in the district on the Miramichi in New Brunswick which would be served by the railway whose construction I am advocating, in the winter season, for a distance of approximately forty miles, you may see teams on top of teams, as it were, hauling smelts from the lower bay to Loggieville, the nearest railway point. I urge this matter now because I imagine the Government will be operating the Caraquet railway in the very near future. The owners having accepted the offer, I hope that the necessary appropriation will be made in the .Supplementary Estimates. I want to impress upon the minister the importance of connecting up the end of that road with Newcastle. We will then have a sort of half-moon line, starting at Bathurst on the Intercolonial railway, running iounl the shore and across the peninsula to Tracadie, thence on to Newcastle, forty miles from the starting point. The minister has this petition in his office; it has been there for some time. I have from time to time directed his attention to the matter and urged its favourable consideration. I can only leave it in his hands; I am sure 'he will not forget it when the proper time comes.


William Stevens Fielding: When we are making
preparation for railway construction in the . West-to which I am not objecting-involving many millions of expenditure, and when several hon. gentlemen are making proposals for other enterprises which would also involve large expenditures, I am sure that it will be a relief to the Minister of Railways to have his attention directed for a moment to an exceedingly modest appropriation which I desire to be made down in Nova Scotia. As we are adopting a system of national railways we shall no doubt in due time have to provide for extensions in the East and in the West, and other projects will be advanced later. But I ask my hon. friend, even at the risk of being deemed too persistent, to give attention to a modest claim for an extension of some three or four miles from the Halifax and Southwestern railway which will give immediate railway connection with Lockeport, a thriving and important fishing town. I have spoken of the matter on several occasions and I do not intend to enlarge on it now. I am aware that representations are being made to the minis-

ter by a committee of citizens of Looke-port. I realize that nothing can be done at present, but I think it is not unreasonable that I should ask my hon. friend to give me an assurance that during the recess an officer of his department will visit that place and make a proper investigation so that at the next session the minister will at all events know the merits and utilities of the project. I hope he will be able to give me that assurance.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Minister of Railways
will, I am sure, be pleased to know that I have not any request to make of him so far as building railways is concerned. I have no doubt, however, that the request made by my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) backed up by very cogent argument, will induce the minister to extend the railway that my hon. friend is interested in, so that it will form a sort of half-moon line from Bathurst around the shore to the town of Newcastle. Before I enter upon the few remarks which I intend to make this evening on the subject of railways, I would like to ask the minister what part of the Canadian National railways is included under the heading of "Canadian Government Railways,'' mentioned in the item now under consideration?


John Dowsley Reid: "Canadian Government Railways" includes the Intercolonial and all its branches in the Lower provinces; the 'Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg; the Hudson Bay Railway; the Quebec and Saguenay Railway. Of course, the Prince Edward Island1 Railway has always been regarded as part of the Intercolonial.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What I wish particularly to refer to is the Intercolonial railway, extending from Montreal to Halifax, St. John, and Sydney. In making his statement this afternoon the minister said that he had found it practically impossible to get rolling stock andi proper equipment for the operation of the Canadian National Railways. He pointed out that when he asked Parliament for appropriations for betterments and equipment in connection with our great railway system, he always met with more or less criticism and opposition from members on this side, and that consequently he hesitated to ask for the vote necessary for that purpose. Well, the minister should not be over-modest in the matter of asking for money for the proper equipment of the railways which we now own and have to operate. Far better would it be for him to ask for sufficient money to equip this railway than to support a vote for $20,000,000 by
way of loan to France or any other foreign country for the purchase of ships in Canada. The proper equipment and maintenance of our railway system is of greater importance and of greater advantage to the people generally than is the proposal that I have mentioned. During the past twenty years I have frequently travelled over the Intercolonial railway. I do not profess to be an expert in railway matters, but I do know that the equipment now used on the Intercolonial does not compare favourably with the equipment which was used prior to 1914 and 1915 before the Government embarked upon the larger enterprise of taking over the 'Canadian Northern Railway and operating it as part of the Government railway system. From Confederation up to 1911 and 1912 the Intercolonial was improved from year to year. The road was equipped with the very best of cars and engines, and a splendid train service was operated in competition with the Canadian Pacific, which has a line between the same terminal points, Montreal and St. John. Prior to 1911 and for some time thereafter a splendid train known as the Ocean Limited was run on the Intercolonial, but after this Government became influenced and taken in hand by the Mackenzie and Mann interests and the Canadian Northern was forced upon them, what happened? Not only was equipment withdrawn from the Intercolonial, which had' been the pride of the people of the Maritime provinces and Quebec, but the name of the road was changed for no other reason than to make it correspond with that of the Canadian Northern. Would it not have been just as well to continue this road as a Canadian Government railway? But, as I say, the name was changed so that the "C.N.R." would be made permanent as part and parcel of the great system which Mackenzie and Mann take the credit for starting and carrying on in	this country.
But in travelling over this road in recent years, what do we find, particularly since the Government have taken over the Canadian Northern railway? We find that the best Pullman cars are taken from that service and put in the West. Travellers over this road now have to ride in practically obsolete, second-class Pullman cars with no electric lights. The other day I came up in a car in which there were kerosene or acetylene lamps, or whatever it might be, but we could not read in the train. There were no lights in the berths, and there were no reasonable facilities for comfortable travelling. That is the way in -which that

portion of the Canadian Government railways known as the Intercolonial railway is being operated at the present time at the expense of the people of the eastern provinces, particularly the Maritime Provinces, who prior to this have always had a proper operation of the road. Travellers, when they find the Government of this country taking over and extending this large system of railways and withdrawing proper facilities from the Intercolonial, naturally, when they are going east from the city of Montreal, go by, the Canadian Pacific railway which has a very much better service than we have on the Ocean Limited train.
I wish also to draw the attention of the Government to the absolute falling down of any attempt to advertise that portion of the-eastern provinces through which the Intercolonial runs. A few weeks ago when I was travelling on the Ocean Limited, I happened to get into conversation with a gentleman from the United States. I kept pointing out to him places of interest along this railway, and finally I said: "Well, we have got through this section of the province of New Brunswick; we are about to leave the province of New Brunswick and to enter Quebec, passing through the Matapedia valley. I want to take you to the rear of the train so that you may have an opportunity of seeing the splendid scenery, unsurpassed in any other country, as the train passes through that section following the curves of the beautiful river Matapedia and across the different brooks -and streams which flow into that river." What did we find? We found an official car, a private car, hitched on behind and the rear of the train covered and housed in so that we could not see the slightest bit of this magnificent country. 'I have drawn the matter to the attention of the minister before, and I have suggested to him that when private ears are being hauled by the train, they should not be placed in the Tear so as to prevent passengers from seeing the magnificent country which this road traverses. I suggested that those official cars that are attached to practically every train on that road should be placed in such a position that passengers would have the opportunity and advantage of viewing t'he scenery.
There is another matter that I have drawn privately to -the attention of the department. I do not say this in -the way of criticism, but I trust that what has taken place will not toe permitted to occur again. -On the very trip of whi-ch I have

spoken, coming up on the Ocean Limited a few weeks ago, I reached Montreal at 9.20 in the morning, the train arriving on time. I was anxious to get back to Ottawa to attend to my duties, -but I found -that the Canadian National Railways train which is supposed to connect with the Ocean Limited leaves at 9.15 a.m. or just five minutes before the Ocean Limited arrives in Montreal and passengers have to Temain i-n the city of Montreal for six hours waiting for -connection to Ottawa. While we are waiting there, what happens? The first train is the Canadian Pacific, and -naturally most passengers take that train, so that we are practically handing traffic over to the Canadian Pacific which my hon. friend -would have us believe is the hated rival of -the Government.
My hon. friend this afternoon referred to the -question of political management. On many occasions I have drawn the minister's attention to the political management of -the Intercolonial. In the first place, I want to say frankly and sincerely to the minister, in support of what has -been sai-d by the hon. member for -Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), that in my opinion, and I believe in -the opinion of at least ninety per -cent -of the people of -that section of the Dominion, the Government or the Board of Directors of this railway have mad-e a mistake in doi-ng -away with the central offices at the ci-ty of Moncton and removing -to Toronto the officials who have authority to look afteT the business of that section of the -country. There is not in -the city of Moncton a -man who -has authority to -buy a scrubbing brush to scrub -the floors of those offices without sending to Toronto for a permit to -buy it. That is a mistake. In the -past we -used to go to Moncton to get our grievances redressed, and the officials there had some authority -and -would give us some satisfaction. But when we go to Moncton to-day, we are told: "We cannot do anything; we shall have to refei the matter to Toronto." There are no cars there to give -to shippers of freight, -and if shippers ask for cars, the matter is referred .to Toronto and the shippers have to wait a week until word is received -back whether caTS will be sent down or not. It was an ill-advised policy to withdraw the general offices from the city of Moncton. That railway system extending from Montreal to Sydney, Halifax, St. John, with all the branch lines and also that portion of the Transcontinental that passes through New Brunswick

would constitute a division that could he /better operated and controlled from the [DOT]city of Moncton, where there are splendid offices and workshops, than from the city of Toronto. If that were done, .people would become wedded* to the system and would have confidence in the Intercolonial and the Canadian Government Railways. But instead of being friendly to the system and trying to carry on business and give their freight to the Canadian Government Railways, they are in preference giving it to the Canadian 'Pacific, which touches St. John; they send their freight from the different localities in New Brunswick to St. John and thence by Canadian Pacific to its destination in the West. Why? because in the city of St. John there are officials with whom they can do business*. People want to do business quickly; if they want freight rates, they want to be able to get them at once so as to know what they are doing. If they have some matter they want to bring before the board of management or before the officials of the road, they take it before the Canadian Pacific officials in St. John and are able to get satisfaction and redress, but on the Intercolonial railway that cannot be done. What happens if something is lost on the Intercolonial? I came across a case the other day-I thought I had the correspondence before me-of a blind man who was coming from. Amherst, having checked' his grip there, to Sackville, a distance of ten miles, from Sackville going down on a branch line to Cape Tormentine and thence to Prince Edward Island. Somewhere in the mix-up his grip was lost. He wrote to Moncton, he telephoned to Moncton, he went to Moncton, but obtained no satisfaction. Finally he left the matter with me. I wrote to Moncton, and after some weeks I got a long letter from a gentleman in Toronto. The whole thing had to go to Toronto, and a list of the articles had to be sworn to, which amounted in value to something like $100. Then this magnanimous gentleman in the city of Toronto said -that he had considered the matter carefully, he had gone through all the correspondence-there was a stack about three inches thick-and he did not feel that the road was liable, but he would give $45 in settlement. That was the reply that came from this Government official. It took all that correspondence and time to settle a matter of $100, and would cost no doubt $500 or $1,000. That is the condition of affairs at present. What we are asking is that some satisfactory arrangement be made whereby
there will be somebody in that portion of the Dominion looking after the interests of the shippers who provide the freight that goes back and forth over the line. Until some such arrangement is made we shall have trouble all the time, and there will be a great deal more in the future than there has been in the past. I implore my hon. friend to throw politics aside for once. You tell me that there are no politics in the operation of the Intercolonial? If that is so, bow is it that there is never a case- you would think it would happen occasionally by some mistake-where a Liberal is appointed to the Intercolonial? There is not a single case, and then you tell me that there is no politics on the Intercolonial. It is useless for my hon. friend to say so. I live at the very centre of the Intercolonial system, close to the city of Moncton. I am there practically every day when I am at home, and I meet the men and the officials employed on the road. I see the men who have been refused work. I see returned soldiers who have been refused work, yet a very few days afterwards, if not the very	next day, I have seen	menput to work on the road for no other reason than	that they	were
friends of my hon. friend who operates the Intercolonial at the present time. My hon. friend may say that Mr. Hanna has told him that he does not want any politics in the operation of the road. I do not say that Mr. Hanna plays politics. I am speaking of the men in whom Mr. Hanna places confidence in the different sections through which this road runs. When they want help what do they do? I am not speaking of the head men. I have no doubt that every official of the Intercolonial of any consequence could truthfully say that he did not play politics on the road, but as you go down the line you eventually get to the men who have the patronage in the different counties of New Brunswick, and who are requested to give their recommendation for the employment of certain men to work on the Intercolonial. There is no question about that being done at all. I do not blame my hon. friend, nor suggest ' that he is telling us what he knows to be untrue. He does not know the facts. I know he would not write down and tell somebody to employ a Tory, but there are wheels within wheels, and as you work down the line it is just as it always was. My hon. friend should know these things, and I believe does know them. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) this afternoon said that the operation Of

the Government railways had been taken out of politics as soon as my friends in this House were defeated. Why, Sir, I could stand here and cite instances by the score, by the hundreds, yes, by the thousands, where after the change of Government in 1911 men were thrown out of employment, thousands of them, without the least regard for their experience or qualifications, for no other reason than politics. From 1911 up to a year or two ago when the road was taken over by the present Board of Directors, the whole staff was engaged by friends of the Government. It is not that I am finding fault with so much as that my hon. friend stands up and tells us who know better that there is no politics in the operation of the road. It might be all very well for him to tell that to people who do not know any better, but I have the information before me day after day and week after week, and I tell him that these things are taking place.


John Dowsley Reid: Notwithstanding the
fact that the hon. member takes issue with my statement, I say that I have not heard, and do not believe, that there is any politics in the operation of the Intercolonial. Might I also say that if the hon. gentleman has the information that politics is being carried on in the operation of the road, why did he not give me the information before? I would stop it promptly if I had the information.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend should not be over-innocent regarding these matters. 1 have told him about it year after year. In any case, I do not need to tell him. The only difference between my hon. friend and myself is that I accept hie word, but he does not accept mine.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought the hon.
member insinuated that I knew something about it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, I said just the reverse.


John Dowsley Reid: Then I withdraw my
statement.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I took great pains to say
I knew the hon. gentleman would not write a letter to anybody on the road telling them to employ Conservatives. He does not have to.
Mr. J. D. RElID: Does the hon. member wish to imply that I do it verbally?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not at all. You would not
do it. You do not have to do it. The men you placed in office years ago are there, and

they do it for you. If my hon. friend does not know it, I can tell him that down in the city of Moncton there has not been a man employed on the Intercolonial for the last five years whose appointment has not gone through the patronage committee in the city of Moncton. A fight is. in progress every once in a while between two men down there. One of them was my opponent, for whom I have the greatest personal regard and respect, and the other is the gentleman who was a candidate in the last election for a few weeks but finally withdrew. There is a fight .between these two as to who shall have the patronage. For a time after the election they divided it. They said: It is your turn to-day, and mine to-morrow. So when my hon. friend talks about political patronage not being rampant on the Government railways he is very much mistaken.


Mr. CURRIE:: May I ask a question?
Whenever the hon. gentleman sees a poor benighted Tory getting a job on that railway, he calls that patronage, but when a Liberal gets a job that is not patronage. According to his theory if all the jobs were given to the Liberals there would not be any patronage on the railway. I understand that no one is given a position on the road except a returned soldier.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Oh, no.


John Allister Currie: It is pretty nearly that.
Further, it isi absolute nonsense for the House to waste time over the wails of the hon. gentleman .about patronage. (I took occasion once to spend three hours reading the names of men. in Nova 'Scotia and New Brunswick who were discharged by the ILaurier Government within two months after they came into office. On that occasion every Tory on the railway w.as discharged except those whose places could not be filled. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. If my hon. friend was in power to-morrow he would be the first man to claim his patronage and fire the Tories from the railway. We are so accustomed to hypocrisy of this kind in the House that the sooner my hon. friend gets off that and lets the House come to a close the better. He is not enlightening any one and is not making any point either.


Mr. OOPP:: I have waited in vain for my hon. friend to ask his question.


John Allister Currie: The question I want to
ask you is this: Would you see a Tory get a position on that road? Would you con-

sent to a Conservative getting a position there?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


John Allister Currie: You never did.


Albert James Smith Copp: How do you know?
Mr. CURRIlE:	You never recommended
one in your life.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How do you know that?


John Allister Currie: Go ahead and leit us have the names of any you recommended.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Order. I must request hon. members to direct their remarks to the Chair.


John Allister Currie: Well, then, let me ask
the hon. gentleman if he ever recommended a Conservative for a position on that road?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I may tell my hon. friend
that I never had the opportunity to recommend any one.
Mr. CURRIE.:	You would not do so if
you had.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I trust I may have the opportunity before very long to recommend men, and it is my sincere hope that I shall be able to bring sufficient influence to bear in order to secure a fair deal for every one. Whatever influence I have had, I have never yet asked to have a Conservative dismissed from office for any cause whatever. My hon. friend will pardon me if I am trespassing upon the time of the House, and I should be sorry to have my remarks worry him. But the hon. gentleman has taken up a great deal more time this session than I, and I do not know that he has been more instructive to the House than I have been in my contributions to the debases, whatever may be their value. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the hon. member to read me a lecture and to say how long or how short a time I shall occupy in my remarks. We might as well have a distindt understanding so far as that is concerned, and I may inform the hon. gentleman that I propose to discuss this matter as fully as I think proper. I thought I was keeping within the rules of the House, and I did not intend to do	anything to hurt the feelings of any hon. member; but my hon. friend is so exceedingly sensitive that he seems to have become alarmed and is rushing (to the rescue of the Minister of Railways. Now, I think the minister can get along very well without assistance from that
hon. gentleman. The minister and I have, always got along tolerably well, and I was only telling him some things which I thought might be a guide to him in the future. I have no doubt that when the minister says that such-and-such is the case he believes that what he says is true; but when he tells me things that I know are not in accordance with the facts I think it is only right that I should so inform him. It is immaterial to my argument whether or not the Laurier Government dismissed all the Tories in 1896. I had no part in that affair, whatever may have been done, and if my hon. friend has anything to say in that regard I shall be glad to hear him.
I know nothing about what the Government did in 1896 or how many men they dismissed, and, what is more, I do not care. Let me tell my hon. friend that I do not care how many Tories he places in office in the city of Moncton or elsewhere, but I do ask him and the management of the road not to tell people that politics has been thrown aside and that there is no further political interference in the province of New Brunswick in .connection with the operation of the Canadian Government railways. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite not to put that forward as a fact, for I know better.
I want to refer to a certain matter and I would ask the minister to give it his particular attention. Indeed, I have brought it to his attention on different occasions. It has reference to a very deserving class of people, and I know that the minister will hear me out when I say that something should be done on behalf of these people, for they are placed in a most unfortunate and disadvantageous position at the present time. I am not bringing up this matter by way of criticism of the minister or of the management of the railways; I am simply anxious that something shall be done. I refer to the question of pensions under the Provident Fund Act which was passed in 1907. I think that was the first attempt to provide a pension fund for the employees of the Intercolonial Railway. I have not the Act before me, but I think, speaking from memory, it provided that the Government should make an assessment on the men in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway. The men were to pay a certain sum per month-I do not know the exact amount-and the Government would contribute a like sum in order to provide a fund for the superannuation of the employees as they were retired from the ser-

vice, on the one condition that the amount to be provided by the Government should not exceed $100,000 in any one year. That, briefly, is an outline of the Act. At that time, of course, this was something altogether new and the men regarded it as a great advantage to them. Men have been retired year by year and have .received $20 per month as retiring allowance, and I think they still have to pay a certain proportion per month out of that to the Provident Fund. Now in 1907, and up to 1912, or possibly 1914, $20 a month was a fair amount of assistance to an old man who had been retired from the service, but to-day, as we all know very well, this sum is nothing but a bagatelle to a man who has a family to support. There are a number of old men in that section of the country receiving $20 a month and that is practically all they have to live on, and they are drifting around almost on the town. To-day I received a long letter from a railway man. He does not happen to come from my constituency, although I know the man very well. He used to be in Moncton and now lives in the town of Truro, and he sets forth some ten or fifteen different complaints in connection with this matter. It is net necessary for me to take up the time of the House rehearsing them 'because we all know what they are. I realize that the Government, until they make some change in the Act, are helpless in this matter. They are bound by the Act that was passed in 1907, but to-day we are passing pension Acts and providing superannuation allowance for different men in the Government service, and there is no reason why a class of men like *these should not receive some consideration. There are a great many of them, and a large percentage of them are not living at all, but only existing, on this pittance. I am not in a position to make suggestion as to what my hon. friend should do, but I do think that the Government,, who are responsible, should devise some measure by which these men, who were trusted and efficient employees in their day, may get fair treatment. They are getting pretty old, and a number of them are being retired from time to time. I think they should be given the same consideration in view of the high cost of living, as is given to men who are similarly circumstanced. The men have talked this matter over with me many times, and I hardly go through Moncton without coming across one or more of them. They always ask me to do something in the matter, but my hands are tied; and I realize that the [Mr. Copp.l
Government's hands are also tied until something is done to change the present statute. I. know that my hon. friend and every other hon. gentleman in this House is sympathetic towards these men, but the point is that we should get something done through the Railway Department in connection with the Provident Fund officials themselves. They have a set of officials who work along with the Government and something should be done to provide for these men a fair retiring allowance. I trust that the minister will during the recess take this matter up and try, with his staff, to work out some arrangement, which will be reasonable and fair to these men.
There are many things in connection with the Government railways that I could refer to but I do not want to impose upon the good nature of the House. I have brought these matters to the attention of the minister with the best intentions and not in the way of criticism entirely. I think hon. members from the Maritime provinces must realize that portion of Canada is not getting its fair and just desserts in regard to railway and other accommodations. It is only our duty, if it cannot be counted a pleasure, to bring these matters to the attention of the minister because this is the only avenue through which we can bring them publicly to his notice.
There is another matter that I regret very much to have to take up but I want to bring it to the minister's attention and see if he is in a position to give me some assurance because I do not wish to take up these very voluminous documents which I have before me

they refer to the dismissal of a certain railway official in the city of St. John in 1917-unless I am obliged to. This matter, as I understand, has not as yet been before the House. It has been before the department on different occasions. In going through the file I find that no less than two Cabinet ministers have taken it up and that one, if not two, private members in St. John have been before the Department of Railways in regard to it. The matter now has been placed in my hands. I have taken it up with the department privately but I have been unable to get redress for the gentleman on whose behalf I speak. I am very glad to see that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Wigmore) is here. The matter that I speak of has reference to the dismissal of Mr. Carvill, who had been ticket agent of the Canadian Government railway for eighteen years and who was summarily dismissed after four days' notice. I would like to say to the minister that I do not

want to make this document public unless I have to. All this man asks is to have an investigation into the cause of his summary dismissal from the Intercolonial. A Jew days prior to his dismissal a burglary had taken place in the Government railway ticket office in St. John. An investigation was being carried on by the police of the Intercolonial as well as the police of St. John. Finally, the whole thing was called off and Mr. Carvill was summarily dismissed. Mr. Carvill is a man with whom I have not the slightest acquaintance. I do not know him and I do not know that I have ever had an opportunity of meeting him. I know nothing about his politics or anything else. The correspondence I have had has been with the legal gentleman who has been retained by Mr. Carvill, as .also with Mr. Carvill, and I may say for the information of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that this legal gentleman is a strong Tory. He is the gentleman who has communicated with me. You see that I am at least taking up a case on behalf of a good Tory in the city of St. Johnj and I am glad to do it. As I say, this man was summarily dismissed. He and his wife feel keenly the implication and the assumption is present in the minds of a certain number of the people of the city of St. John-that he was dismissed because he was mixed up with this burglary. That view was brought to his attention more particularly very recently. I might just refer to one incident. The elections for the commissioners of the city took place a couple of months ago. Mr. Carvill, who is a resident of St. John, had written a public letter in which there was nothing offensive suggesting that some repairs should be made to certain streets, as men often will do, and that letter was published in an evening paper. The next morning he received a letter dated St. John, January 19, 1920, which reads as follows:
Mr. George Carvill: Go and pay back the money you stole from the Intercolonial railway; I will look after the city of St. John.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it an anonymous letter?


Albert James Smith Copp: It is not an anonymous letter exactly; it is signed but it does not give any initials. It just gives the surname of the person who is supposed to be the writer. It is the name of a public man and I do not want to give it. That shows the position that this man is placed in, and it shows how that position can be misstated and misconstrued. This burglary occurred and a few days after this man was summarily
dismissed. He asked for an investigation. He claims he should have been reinstated. I am not here to say that; I do not know. If he was incompetent and was not con-dhcting his office properly I would place myself on record as taking the position irrespective of politics that if a man holding a public office is not properly discharging his duties he has as much right to be dismissed as anybody else. But, while taking that position, I contend that a man who has given service for eighteen years and against whom no complaint has been made has a right to have his case inquired into when he-believes himself to have been dismissed without cause.- This burglary occurred between six o'clock Saturday night and seven o'clock Monday morning and in a few days this man was summarily dismissed, and the whole investigation in regard to the matter was called off. What conclusion would the ordinary individual come to but that they had found that he was guilty of this theft-, and that they -had dismissed -him? It is unfair, it is a gross injustice to this man, I care not what his politics may have been. It -is a gross injustice, an injustice that goes before his friends in the city of St. John, blackens his character and reputation and he has n-o opportunity of publicly defending himself in regard to the transaction. I repeat it is- unfair on the part of the officials- of the road. I do not blame the minister personally but I desire to get some reasonable assurance that this man will be given an opportunity of having his case investigated. I care not how old he may be, I care not how poor he may be, he is entitled to a decent, fair investigation when his reputation is blackened by the people who have summarily dismissed him without giving him a chance to vindicate his reputation -and to show he was not guilty of the theft with which he -has-been practically charged by people in the city of St. John. That is the condition of affairs. This man has asked repeatedly-through letters written by himself, through his solicitor, and through his wife-for the Railway Department -to appoint a commissioner so that- he might give evidence under oath and call witnesses and clear himself from this suspicion. All he wants is an opportunity to prove his innocence with respect to the stealing of public money. That opportunity of establishing his innocence has been denied^ him by the men who have charge of the Intercolonial Railway; and I say it is unfair and inhuman that men holding high positions and drawing big salaries

should take upon themselves the responsibility of refusing any man-I do not care whether he is in the public service or whether he is a private individual an opportunity of showing to the public that he is not guilty of the crime of which he only stands) suspected1, and, I say, suspected from the attitude and action of the Government. All II want is for the minister to assure me that he will take up this matter and give this man an opportunity of proving his case before an independent tribunal so that he may have a chance to clear his character. Ilf that opportunity is afforded him and he cannot clear himself, then he must take the responsibility. I have no doubt that in making that request I shall have the support of my hon. friend from the city of St. John who I now see opposite me.
I am not finding fault with this man's dismissal, I am not asking at this time for his reinstatement; I am simply pleading that justice be done to one who has been placed in the difficult position in which this man finds himself. I have numerous documents here that I must place on Hansard unless the minister can see his way clear to grant the very reasonable request that is made. I trust therefore my hon. friend will be able to assure me that he will grant the required investigation by a commissioner.


Herbert John Mackie: Could not
the party in question have recourse to the law courts if it is a case of wrongful dismissal?


Arthur Bliss Copp: II do not know that he could. He was a public servant and I think the Railway Department had a perfect right to dismiss him if he was incompetent or was not giving proper service, although I think he should have received! more notice. However, that is not the point I am making.


Herbert John Mackie: Perhaps I
misunderstood the hon. member. I understood him to say that the implication against this man was that 'he was discharged on account of an alleged theft. Surely under the circumstances if there was wrongful dismissal and the man is not guilty he could have recourse to the law courts and could even sue the Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend misunderstood me if he gathered that I said there was an alleged offence. There is no such thing alleged against this man, but the suspicion rests in the public mind. The public know that a theft took place, and when he was summarily dismissed they
[Mr. Copp.l
naturally came to the conclusion that it was on account of this theft. I do not say that the railway officials think that for a moment, but that is the idea in the public mind. It is a very simple thing to give him the opportunity of clearing away any suspicion that may he resting upon him in connection with this matter, and my hon. friend I think .should do it.
I do not want to take up the time of the House in placing the documents in my possession upon Hansard but I shall have to do so unless the minister will grant my request and save any further argument.


John Dowsley Reid: This particular case
occurred, as the hon. member has stated, during the administration of the late Hon. Mr. Cochrane, and before I became the head of the Department. In order to show that the late Mr. Cochrane was anxious to do everything he could for this man I find that on May 24th, 1917, he wrote Mr. Hayes as follows:
I am anxious that no injustice should he done him, and will be glad if you will look into this matter personally and let me have a complete and detailed statement of the case.
I only give that quotation in order to show that my predecessor had no personal feeling against Mr. Oarvill.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know that; I do not
blame the minister.
Mr. J. ID. REID: Mr. Oarvill had been for a number of years ticket agent at St. John, and the records show that in the penfomance of the duties he was careless and negligent. Previous to this theft his work had not been of a satisfactory character, and the officials of the department had draw his attention to the fact that he was not attending to his business in a proper manner. Later on the theft, which resulted in the loss of several hundred dollars, took place from the ticket office. The railway officials believed that Mr. Oarvill was not looking after the office as well as he Should, and that probably owing to his carelessness this 'theft occurred; but there is nothing to show that at that time or since they ever entertained the slightest belief that Mt. Carvill was guilty, or that they suspected him in any way of being concerned with the theft. In fact they exonerated him of that in every possible way. Neither did the late Mr. Cochrane believe that Mr. ICarvill had anything to do with the theft. Having informed Mr. Oarvill, or his friends, that

no suspicion of the kind was responsible for his dismissal the late Mr. Cochrane thought he had done all that he could do to clear Mr. Carvill's reputation in the matter. Mr. Carvill has brought the subject to my attention, and to the attention of other members of the /Government, in order, as the hon. member has just stated, to clear his reputation before the public. Those ministers to whom he wrote have been shown the file containing the documents relating to the case, and after looking over it they have concluded that no other action could have been taken than has been adopted up to the present time. My hon. friend does not ask that this man be reinstated; he simply asks that he be freed from any suspicion of theft. But he wants a commissioner appointed to take evidence in the matter. If there is any suspicion on the part of the people of St. John that this man had anything to do with the theft, I want to tell them that the officials of the railway in no way believed or had the impression that he had anything to do with the theft. They absolved him from all blame so far as that is concerned, though they thought that he was careless in his duties. I repeat that they never believed that he had anything to do with the theft, and as the Minister of Railways and representing the Government I say the same thing now. I have gone over the file several times, and I do not believe that Mr. Carvill had anything to do with that thelft. If I can do anything further to clear his reputation, why, I want to do it. I have never seen him or any of his family; I do not know anything about them. But we do not in any way implicate him ; his character is perfectly free so far as that incident is concerned. What would be the use in my appointing a commissioner to go down and take evidence, and hear some people swear that he had nothing to do with the matter? The statements that I have made here tonight should he sufficient to free him from any suspicion; there should be no necessity for further explanation. I hope, therefore, that if the people of St. John have any belief of that kind they will remove it. from their minds and let Mr. Carvill go about the city as an upright and honourable citizen.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no doubt that my
hon. friend is absolutely sincere and honest in what he says, and that he would very much like to clear Mr. Carvill from any suspicion in the matter. But there is only 269
one way that the minister can absolutely clear this man from the insinuations which have been cast upon him by gentlemen who had control of the Intercolonial railway at the time, the manager and his officials at Moncton. The minister publicly states that Mr. Carvill had nothing to do with the theft. Well, I have no doubt that the minister would gladly say that, but the point is that the damage has been done. I do not want to repeat the argument, but by their action these officials have placed Mr. Carvill in a most unfortunate position in the eyes of the public.


John Dowsley Reid: I state here and now that the officials of the railway, whether at St. John or Moncton, have never even insinuated so far as1 I know-


Arthur Bliss Copp: Oh, yes.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events the records on file show that they have never insinuated that Mr. Carvill had anything to do with the theft. Now, if a commission is appointed to investigate the matter something might be said that might be interpreted in an entirely different way. If the hon. member will say what employees made the statement to which he refers/, we will take care of them; we will find out why they make those statements. But unless some evidence is forthcoming that such statements are being made surely this man's character cannot be more effectively cleared than by the statement which I have just made on behalf of the employees at St. John, Moncton or anywhere else on the railway. Why should we go to the expense of holding an investigation?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The expense would not be large. My hon. friend says that this man was dismissed because of incompetency. I have no fault to find, except this-and I maike the statement with reservation because it is based on information furnished to me. This man was dismissed in March, 1917. According to the file, it would appear that this man was incompetent during the whole of his eighteen years of service; he was backward in sending in his reports, and so on. In December, 1916, hardly three months prior to his dismissal, Mr. Hayes increased his salary. On a previous occasion he asked him if he would accept a better position outside of St. John, intimating that he was paying him all he could for the St. John office but that he would be prepared to give him a position outside with greater responsibility and at a higher salary. Now that does' not altogether indicate the incom-



potency on the part of the official in question that this file would seem to suggest. However, I am pot discussing that point, because I am not now asking for his reinstatement. But the minister says that not the slightest suspicion has been cast upon him by the manager or officials of the Intercolonial Railway. I notice on going through the file that they have been pretty careful about what they put in writing, and naturally so, because as soon as they put anything in writing in regard to a man s character they are liable to action; they are not exempt, as my hon. friend would be in regard to anything he said in the House, -although I know he would not say anything derogatory to the gentleman. But in one of his letters Mr. Hayes, then manager of the railway, writing to the Minister of Railways, staid:
I wish to assure you and Mr. Mullen that the cause of Mr. Carvill's removal from the position of city ticket agent was not entirely due to recent developments but rather to general incompetency.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


Arthur Bliss Copp: "Not entirely due to recent developments". What would you infer from that expression? A burglary was committed on a certain day. Subsequently the man who had charge of the office was summarily dismissed and thfe police who had been working on the case were sent away. Then the manager of the Intercolonial Railway, in subsequent correspondence, points out that this man's dismissal was "not entirely due to these recent developments", but was due "rather to general incompetency".


John Dowsley Reid: He was dismissed for his carelessness.


Arthur Bliss Copp: From a reading of that paragraph one would see at once that the General Manager was using both strings to his bow. If the man was guilty of burglary, he should be dismissed; if he was not guilty of burglary he should be dismissed anyway, on the ground of incompetency. That is the only legal interpretation you could make of that paragraph in Mr. Hayes' letter. It is written with a great deal of acumen, I grant you; he carefully guards himself on every hand. But I should like to point out that in December, 1916, the offer of higher salary was made to this man by this same manager-and up to that time not a single word had been uttered against his record or his competency. But he was offered a higher salary and a more responsible position if he would leave St. John because he was receiving the 
highest salary that could be paid to an official there. It does not seem to me that his incompetency could develop to such an extraordinary degree in the three months between December, 1916, and March, 1917. If there is justice in the mind of anybody who has had charge of this matter, that roan should be given an investigation; indeed, his case should have been investigated at the time. It is never too late to right a wrong that has been done to an individual in a case of this kind. My hon. friend speaks of the expense of this, but surely the expense would not be so very large. I may say to my hon. friend that if the Department of Railways and Canals are in an economical frame of mind to-night and feel that they should not impose upon the country by appointing a commissioner to sit for one day in the city of St. John, I feel sure some means could be taken by the friends of Mr. Carvill to pay for the commissioner if the Government do not feel they are able to spend this large amount of money to do justice to an official who has served them for eighteen years.
d have placed the facts before the minister, and I appeal to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Wigmore) who knows the situation and who, no doubt, knows this man, to support my request for an investigation. I do not know this man, but I have received numerous letters from him and most heart-rending letters from Mrs. Carvill that the family has been ostracised by the people of St. John because of a gross injustice-I care not who is responsible for it-that was forced upon him through no fault of his own. He had charge of this office, and through all this voluminous correspondence he gives the best of reasons why he was absent from the office at that time. He was absent on official duty; he was taken from his. office to ticket military trains through St. John. He left his office before six o'clock and he was at work at the station until ten o'clock at night, to do for this railway what he thought was his duty. Are the Minister of Railways and his officials, some of whom to-day are directors of this great railway system, prepared to accept the responsibility of allowing this man to .suffer under a shadow, a cloud, a suspicion, not of ihis own making, but forced upon him at that time by the officials of the Intercolonial railway for whose acts the Minister of Railways and Canals must be responsible in this House ta-night. I ask him if he refuses the fair and just demands of this man, who stands to-day prac-

tically charged by suspicion of his friends in the city of St. John with whom he has been living for many years, and who is today being ostracised by those people. The minister, because those officials at one time arbitrarily refused to give this man what was his just and fair due, is prepared to stand up and say: 'It is satisfactory to me and enough to say that he was not guilty. It will not be satisfactory to the friends of Mr. Carvill in St. John, nor to the right thinking people of the city of St. John, nor of the whole province of New Brunswick, nor of the Dominion of Canada, that a man should be placed in this position, not through any fault of his own, but forced in it because of the arbitrary decision of officials in regard to this man. Because he was a poor man occupying an inferior position under them, they were prepared, not only to blacken his character and his standing, but to ruin himself and his family in St. John. Why? Because, forsooth, they did not want to go to the expense of appointing a commissioner to investigate those charges and to give this man a reasonable and fair and just opportunity of placing before the public his side of the case, and to let it be understood that that should be done. I feel that I should place this whole document on Hansard so that every one will realize the position of affairs; but I have placed the matter before the minister and I hope the hon. member for 'St. John (Mr. Wigmore) whom I see before me will say at least that he is prepared to endorse the request 1 am making of the minister. The hon. member who lives in the city of St. John probably knows this man. I, however, feel that 'I have done my duty. I have placed the responsibility where it belongs, and the only avenue through which I could place it is through the Minister of Railways who must take the responsibility of the position taken by his officials. He stands to-day responsible, and if he refuses the fair and just demand that this man should be given a just trial, the minister must take the responsibility. I leave the matter to. him, and the public will judge whether he and his officials under him are taking the right course in leaving this man in the position in which he is placed to-day, absolutely helpless under the suspicion that is cast upon him. He is constantly receiving anonymous letters in the city of St. John; he is obliged to ostracise himself practically in the public streets of iSt. John be-cauee of the wilful, unjust and unnecessary pretence of my hon. friend and his officials, 269i	1 '
who., as I said a moment ago, are prepared to blacken this man's character for the sake of saving some criticism that might be levelled at officials of the Intercolonial railway at the time this took place.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I wish to call the attention of the committee to a condition that exists and has existed for some years in Canada, and that works a great hardship to shippers of freight over both the Canadian National railways and privately-owned railways. To illustrate my point, I wish to quote from the Canadian Car Demurrage Rules authorized by the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada and put into effect on August 20, 1917. According to these railway rules, shippers of freight are allowed forty-eight hours to load and unload cars, with certain exceptions, some of which are these. The last part of rule 5 of this book reads;
Should bulk freight be so frozen in transit, or before placement, as to render unloading impossible within the prescribed free time, such additional time shall be granted as may be necessary.
Rule 6 provides:
That if cars are bunched in transit-
That is, a firm may be able to handle, say five cars a day and ship them out at that rate, and on account of some neglect or other causes in transit, those cars become bunched and arrive at their destination, say twenty cars a day instead of five. The consignees have only forty-eight hours to unload those cars. There is a provision that in case of cars being bunched they get a rebate on the demurrage, but they must pay demurrage at the point of unloading and put their application into the railway for a rebate. Rule 10 reads:
If payment of demurrage charges properly due on cars held on public delivery tracks be refused, delivery of only the car or cars on which such charges are due shall be withheld by means of sealing or locking, or by placing where such cars shall not be accessible.
I am hot quoting these rules to find any fault with them. The rules are absolutely right, because it is necessary to see that cars are loaded or unloaded in the specified time. But I want to point out how this works out in the case where the shipper or a man who receives a consignment of freight by the carload is entitled to a refund. First he has to pay the demurrage before he can unload the cars, and must apply to the railway company for a refund. Before I go further, I want to state that I think this works a greater hardship to the shippers of perishable food stuffs such as potatoes, of
*230

which we ship large quantities from New Brunswick, than to the shippers of other products.


John Dowsley Reid: May I say to the hon. gentleman that the matter he is referring to is one that the Minister of Railways oannot deal with. It is a matter for the Board of Railway Commissioners. If a shipper has Ibeen charged too much for demurrage or has any grievance of that kind, the Board of Railway Commissioners are the ones 't)o deal with it. If an appeal came to me I would have to send it to the hoard, which is the only hody under the law as It stands competent to deal with this kind of grievance. Unless the hon. member wishes to put the facts on Hansard be might write to the Board of Railway Commissioners or interview them, or if he sends me the facts I will take it up through the department with the board. I only mention that in case the hon. gentleman did not understand the situation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did understand it, I have been to the Railway Commission about this. I consulted the chairman of 'the board and. he told me they had no jurisdiction in the matter. 'Tlhalt is why I 'wanted to suggest that some provision should be made whereby claims like this could he submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners. Here are the claims of one shipper in New Brunswick, and his case is only one of hundreds. He is a shipper of perishable foodstuffs. He has over 300 claims, totalling same $17,000, covering a .period of seven years, dating back to 1913. They run from $5 to $1,300. The only recourse open to this shipper is to sue the railway company, and go into court and argue his claim there. 'Now I think a remedy should be provided. We all know what it means for a private individual to sue a railway company. Here are 300 claims, and they could not he sued in bulk, but would have to be each taken up separately and fought out in the courts. We all know about how these things dome out. I would suggest that provision be made empowering the Railway Commission to deal with these matters, so that they could 'adjust the differences between the shipper and the railways. I do not think this House believes it is fair and right that' a shipper should have to go to Law with a railway company to recover an overcharge of freight, or demurrage. According to the railway rules the shippers are allowed a rebate 'for an overcharge, hut in practice they do not get it. As an evidence of that here are these 300 claims dating hack to 1913, not one of which has 
been adjusted. The way it works out in the long run is 'this. The firm h-as to ab-fsorb these charges. No w $17,000 of charges, which I believe are legitimate charges, are too much for any firm to absorb. I say f believe these are legitimate Charges. I have no business interest in this firm, but I know the gentlemen personally. They went into a shipping business in a small way, twelve or fifteen years ago, with very little capital', and by their business ability and integrity they have built up perhaps one of the biggest shipping businesses in Canada. I have yet to know of their making any claim that was not legitimate. I have reason to 'believe that these claims are legitimate, but they have not been able to get any of them adjusted. I would like t)he minister, or Parliament, or whoever is competent to deal with the matter, to make provision giving power to 'the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with such claims. The chairman of the hoard told me that they would be quite willing to undertake this work.
There is another matter I wish to refer to, briefly, as Ithe hour is late. It is in regard to a question I put on the Order Paper in 'tlhe early part of the session regarding running rights over the Canadian Pacific from Westfield .Beach to St. John for the trains of the ,St. John -and Quebec railway. I got a reply on -the 16th of April. The question was this:
Did the Dominion Government make an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to secure running rights for the said St. John and Quebec Railway trains over the said Canadian Pacific railway between Westfield Beach and St. John?
'The answer was: No. Then I asked:
And if the Dominion Government did not make such agreement, who did, and what are the terms?
The answer was:
The St. John and Quebec Railway Company. The terms are as follows:
Then the terms are given. I had reason to believe at the time that the Minister of Railways must have been misinformed. Three days after I got a reply to this question, the Premier of New Brunswick made a statement in the local house that was absolutely contrary to the information given in the answer I have just quoted. Speaking in the provincial house, the Premier said in part:
It was expected that the Canadian National Railways would take over the road for operation when completed on September 1st, 1919. For more than a year previous the directors of the company had been urging on the manage-

ment of the Canadian National railways the necessity of making some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway for running right* between St. John and Westfield. Assurance had been given by the officials of the Canadian National railways that such arrangements had been made and that there would be no difficulty or delay. When the road was completed, however. it was found that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would not allow Valley railway trains to run over their tracks until an agreement in writing had been made.
I took this matter up in the Budget debate, and I was very sorry the minister was not in the House. I meant to call his attention to this privately, but it slipped my mind. I now take this opportunity of asking the minister to clear the matter up by telling us who secured these running rights, what they cost, 'and who is paying for them. I take the statement of the Premier of New Brunswick very seriously. I might say that there is no such thing as the St. John and Quebec Railway Company. That is merely a figure of speech. Our provincial government built the road,, and the Dominion Government is operating it under an agreement with our province whereby the province receives 40 per cent of the gross earnings of the road. Now the gross earnings have never amounted to more than $75,000 a year -if I am mistaken, the minister will put me right. Some years ago-it has been in operation five years-it was only earning in the neighbourhood of $50,000 a year. I, understand that there is no agreement signed with anybody for running rights, but that under a tentative agreement the Canadian National Railway system, or whoever is to pay, is to pay the Canadian Pacific $100,000 a year for running rights over ten miles of their road to carry into St. John the traffic of a railroad that only earns $75,000 a year. A return was -also made to an order 'otf the House, dated May 12, 1920, that I had moved for asking for a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents or other papers exchanged between the Dominion Government or any official thereof, and the Government of New Brunswick with reference to this matter. The papers have been brought down, and all they consist of is a letter from the president of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company dated the 3rd of June and an acknowledgment. Now the order for return was passed on the 121th of May, and trains have been running over this portion otf the road since September 1, 1919. Yet, after an order being passed that all the papers in connection with this matter should be brought doiwn, [DOT]aJll that is actually brought down is a letter [DOT]from the president otf the Quebec and St.
John railway protesting that they have nothing to do with the procuring of these running rights and a short acknowledgment from the Department Of Railways that they had received his letter. If this is a return of "all the letters, telegrams and correspondence in connection with these running rights," it is not much wonder the minister does not know who secured the running rights. I would ask the minister to- clear that point up now.


John Dowsley Reid: As other hon. members are going to speak I will deal with my hon. friend's question when I take up the others.


Mr CAMPBELL:: At this late hour of the night and at this the final stage of the session, I certainly do not intend to make any extended remarks on the subject of railways, hut I think that if I ask a few questions of the minister it may serve my purpose this evening. I understood! him to say a few moments ago that the item which we have under consideration, No. 114, included the Hudson Bay railway. Does that also include construction of branch lines in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


John Dowsley Reid: No; that item does not. I can give my hon. friend any information at my disposal if he will indicate what lines he has reference to.


John Archibald Campbell: Would the construction of any of the lines in the West come under *this item?


John Dowsley Reid: There is an item on the next page of $48,000,000.


John Archibald Campbell: That is item 127; it covers all the items in connection with the construction of the Canadian Northern and any extension of that line. Is that right?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Archibald Campbell: I take it that this item 114, construction and betterments, is sufficient to include any work which the Government may undertake in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, either in the way of betterments or construction, during the coming year. I might say that the subject in regard to which I intended to speak was not only the Hudson Bay railway but certain branch lines in Northern Manitoba and -Saskatchewan which would' eventually become part of the same system and 'be connected up with Hudson Bay. If the minister would now give a statement as to these branch lines -I should! be very much obliged. The branch lines I have particularly in mind are those of Northern Sas-

k at chew an and partly Northern Manitoba. They are the Melfort extension northeasterly, the Humboldt-Melfort branch, the Thunder Hill line westerly, the extension northeasterly of the line from Vonda, and also the line connecting up Sturgis with Hudson Bay Junction.


John Dowsley Reid: I can give a list of the lines I have here. The Humboldt-Melfort has a grade of 5.4 and a 32 track.


John Archibald Campbell: Will that complete the line between Humboldt and Melfort entirely?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand it will.


Frank S. Cahill: I think that if the minister would give us the details of the whole of these lines it would be more Instructive to hon. members. The statement could appear on Hansard.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Archibald Campbell: How many miles of the Thunder Hill line were constructed last year?


John Dowsley Reid: The statement shows a twenty-mile grade, and I think the rails are laid.


John Archibald Campbell: The rails are to be laid to Kelvington?


John Dowsley Reid: Between the end of the present steel and Kelvington is about fifteen miles. About nine miles have been graded, there being six miles yet to grade. I wrote a letter to the contractor, whom I know personally. He came down from 'Glengarry and I asked him if he could not hurry up that work, and I had a letter from him stating that within two weeks he would have his men there to complete the work on that six miles. President Hanna informed me that if they could get the men and the steel they would have the road steeled into Kelvington this fall, but that it would depend entirely on the men and steel available. The contractor told me that it was almost impossible to get men to do the work there at the present, time.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: Do I understand that there is twenty miles of steel on the Thunder Hill extension?


John Dowsley Reid: I have on the list for Thunder Hill extension twenty miles, which they were to do this year, but I understood from Mr. Hanna that between Kelvington and this point there was a distance of fifteen or twenty miles to be graded. He said they would complete the grading, and the last information I had was that there was about eight miles yet to be done. They intend to lay the steel if they can get the labour and the steel.


John Flaws Reid: I drove over that grade last summer. Part of it is all right but the gaps will have to be filled in.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no doubt that they are making every effort to connect Kelvington with the end of the steel as at present laid.


John Flaws Reid: The end of the steel now is seventeen miles from Kelvington. Has the extension made last fall been ballasted?


John Dowsley Reid: It Is possible the grading is complete on the twenty miles.


John Flaws Reid: Perhaps the 20 miles includes the extension beyond Sturgis. Would the minister give me the information as soon as possible in regard to that 20 miles of grading?


John Dowsley Reid: I will be glad to show the hon. gentleman the correspondence I have had with the contractor.


Frank S. Cahill: What work has been done on the Kamloops line up to date?


John Dowsley Reid: I will try and get that information before we go on with the Supplementary Estimates.


John Archibald Campbell: Is the line being built from Preeceville or Sturgis to Hudson Bay junction? Several deputations weTe down here last year to see the minister in connection with that work and he said he could not satisfy them then but that possibly something could be done this year.


John Dowsley Reid: Even with all that we have laid out they are afraid it is going to be difficult to get men, rails and equipment. With regard to the question as to the operation of the Hudson Bay railway, there is an amount in the Main Estimates of $100,000 which is to pay the expenses of looking after the terminals at Port Nelson and other works in connection with keeping the road in operation. In addition to that we have in the Supplementary Estimates $80,000 which is the estimated cost of putting in repair the present mileage and to keep the road in such condition that it can be operated until construction is finally completed. There is no doubt whatever, and there need be no doubt in the minds of the people of that locality, that the Hudson Bay railway will be kept in operation up to where it has been operated for some time.


John Archibald Campbell: Is it the intention of the minister to lay any more steel or to do any further construction work this year on the Hudson Bay railway?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am sory to say that owing to the shortage of labour, finances and everything else, the intention is not to lay any steel farther "than it is at the present time,-I think it is 310 miles-but to keep that 310 miles in operation. Some doubt has arisen as to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. There never was any doubt at all in the mind of the Government. It is the intention of the Government at the earliest possible date to see that that road gets through to Hudson bay. The Government started it and they intend, as soon as the situation will allow, to see that the road is carried on to the Bay.


John Archibald Campbell: I may say to the minister that his statement this evening is very
much like a statement that I have heard before. I quote from the Canadian Annual Review of 1911 a statement made by Mr. R. L. Borden (as he then was) during his tour of Western Canada. Hon. gentlemen will remember that 1911 was an important year in the history of this Government. The statement was as follows:
The Conservative party has been committed to the construction of the Hudson's Bay Railway since 1896. The road will be built by the next Conservative administration without one day's unnecessary delay. It will be operated by an independent Commission on behalf and in the interests of the people with full control of rates.
That statement is practically the same as the statement the minister has made at the present time. In the platform of the Conservative party, as taken from the Canadian Annual Review of the same date the policy of the 'Conservative party is laid down as follows:
Construction of the Hudson Bay Railway and its operation by an independent commission.


John Dowsley Reid: What date was that?


John Archibald Campbell: It was 1911.


John Dowsley Reid: Since that date we have built 310 miles-


John Archibald Campbell: Yes, 332 miles,
Mt. J. D. RElID: True, 332 miles,-graded the road right in to the Bay, spent $17,000,000 and I think the hon. member will not dispute the fact that if the war had not come we would have hadi the railway right into Hudson Bay and therefore the pledge of my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) has been carried out almost to the full extent. The war prevented the road being completed.


John Archibald Campbell: As far as the war is concerned, this Government carried on the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and the terminals until the war was finished, but on completion of the war the work on the Hudson Bay railway stopped. That is something I never could understand. During the war the greatest amount of money was spent and work done on the Hudson Bay Tailway. Nearly all the work that was done on the terminals was done while the war was in progress, the steel was completed to mile 332 at the end of 1916, and further work was done on the road in 1917, including the partial construction of the second bridge over the Nelson river. That bridge was completed almost at the same time as the armistice was signed. But since the armistice no work whatever has been done on

the railway. It has always been, somewhat of a mystery to me why the work was pushed ahead during the period of the war while since the war the work on the road should have stopped. In 1918 there was an item in the Estimates of $1,000,000 for the completion of the road. The officials of the department said the road could be completed at that time for that amount. None of it was used because it was claimed that rails could not be obtained for the completion of the road. In 1919, for the first time in many years, no item appeared in the Estimates for work on that road except the item of $100,000 that we have in the Estimates to-day for work at the terminals. That is merely a nominal sum in order that the Government may be provided with the necessary fund to look after the terminals, and do any repairs needed, provide watchmen and that sort of thing.
II may tell the .minister that the people of the West are greatly disappointed that the road is not being pushed forward. The minister has just said that this pledge made by the present .Prime Minister and this plank in the platform of the Conservative party have been carried out. The facts certainly do not carry out that statement.
I will tell the House what has already been done; in fact a little more has been done than what the minister has stated. The grading has been completed to the bay, including the construction of two steel bridges over the Nelson river and another over the Saskatchewan river. Three hundred and thirty-two miles of steel have been laid, leaving only 92 miles of steel to be laid to finally complete the railway to the hay itself. As I have already said, of the steel which has been laid the last rail was put down in the year 1916, and since that time no more steel has been laid. During five years the 'Canadian Pacific Eailway Company constructed 1,900 miles of line; in ten years on this road only 332 miles have been built. If that is carrying out the pledge of the Government I do not know the meaning of the term. At Calgary a month or so ago a meeting was held of all the Boards of Trade of Western Canada. It was a large meeting, and this matter was discussed there, and a resolution was passed calling for the immediate completion of the railway. Resolutions of a similar character have been passed from time to time by nearly all the public organizations of Western Canada.

Now for a minute or two I would like to review the history of this project. The matter was first brought to public attention almost fifty years ago. I was speaking to a senator the other day, and he told me that as a member of this House he acted on a committee thirty years ago which considered and investigated the Hudson Bay Railway project. Since t-hat time debates have taken place on the subject in Parliament almost yearly. The work was commenced by the Laurier Government in 1910, and was taken up by the Borden Government when they came into power in 1911. Then work was stopped, an investigation took place, and later on in the year work was once more resumed and has resulted as I have described. As I pointed out last year so much of the road has been built that if it is not completed and that part of the line which has already been built put into a satisfactory condition great loss will result from deterioration and decay. The minister told us to-night that $80,000 are to be placed in the Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of putting into proper condition that part of the road over which trains are running, that is 214 miles. Now rails have been laid for 332 miles. There is therefore the remainder, 118 miles, which, I presume, it is proposed to leave entirely untouched until the elements have got in their work with the result that later on a great deal more expense will have to be incurred in order to put that part of the road again into good condition. For some time past representations have been made to the minister-not only by myself but by all the western members who are interested in the construction of this line -for the laying of at least 17 miles of steel this year to connect with two trestles which were built on the Limestone river. With steel connection to the Limestone river, boats could be taken from there down to Port Nelson. A series of rapids would thereby be overcome, and these trestles protected, otherwise they would suffer serious damage in a very short time. I was recently informed that what I feared has happened, the larger one of them has been carried away and this probably represents a loss of $25,000 or $30,000 to the Government in that respect. Unless this matter is gone on with in a businesslike way the project might as well be abandoned, because the road will have to be rebuilt unless it is given immediate attention.
Various reasons have been advanced for not completing the road. One is the lack

of money. In view of the fact that the Government have other items in these Estimates which are certainly of no more importance than the Hudson Bay railway that is rather surprising. Money can be found readily for other enterprises. I might mention the Trent canal, Welland ship canal, and other undertakings. It would seem that the Government can readily provide money for those works which they particularly desire to carry out. The question of obtaining labour is not a consideration. Last year I heard the Minister of Railways speaking about further work on the Welland canal, and he said it was absolutely necessary to go on with it in order to provide labour for the men who otherwise would not be employed. At the same time he said that the Hudson Bay railway could not be proceeded with because labour could not be obtained. I wish to point out that as far as the laying of steel is concerned -and that is the main item which is necessary under present conditions-not much labour is involved. The steel gang does not number more than from 60 to 100 men, and these can readily be obtained up in that northern country.
I now wish to read a short extract from the Winnipeg Free Press with reference to the opposition to the Hudson Bay railway which appears in the East. I can tell the minister that there has been aroused in the minds of the people of the West a strong suspicion that, notwithstanding the announcement of the Government that the road is to be completed, the unnecessary and persistent delays that are taking place and the obstacles that are being placed in the way of its completion, have caused the suspicion that there is some underground influence at work down here to prevent this project from being finished. The Free Press, which speaks authoritatively for the West, has this to say in a recent editorial: Fighting the Hudson Bay Route.
The people of the West would no doubt accept imore philosophically than they do the failure of the Dominion Government to go ahead with'the work of completing' the Hudson Bay railway if they were assured that behind the refusal there was nothing more than the stated economic reasons which are of undoubted force. ,If they are suspicious as to these being the only, or perhaps the controlling reasons, they can And their justification in the inveterate hostility to the whole Hudson Bay enterprise which is entertained by powerful interests in the East which is periodically revealed.
Further on the article says:
The opposition of Montreal and other eastern interests to the Hudson Bay road arises in reality from the fear that if the northern route
*is opened up it will justify the expectations of its promoters and thus deflect traffic through *the Bay and Straits which would otherwise pass through Montreal, enabling that Imperial city to levy a toll upon it. The motive of the opposition is not regard for national economy half as much as it is downright narrow-minded selfishness. Selfishness of a particular stupid kind, too ; for there is no justification for this .fear which oppresses them. If the Hudson Bay route were found to be a success beyond the wildest dreams of its supporters, Montreal, as the commercial capital of Canada, would share in generous measure in the resulting prosperity of Western Canada.
I might just state here in conclusion what does not appear to be generally known, that the West is actually paying for the construction of this road. Some years ago certain lands were set aside to he sold, the proceeds to be used in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Already $30,000,000 worth of these lands have been sold and more than $15,000,000 of money has1 been collected. Therefore all the money needed for the work 'is either on hand, or will be readily available. The Hudson Bay railway is to the people of the West what the Intercolonial railway is to the people of the Maritime Provinces, and what the Canadian Pacific railway is to the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, the western provinces did not have any guarantee, contract or bond that this road would be built, such as the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia had when they entered Confederation.
There is taking place in the East a change of sentiment with respect to this railway. The reasons that were given in the first place for the construction of the line still exist. The West is one thousand miles nearer the seaboard by this route than by the St. Lawrence or any other route. The same conditions exist now that existed when this was given as the only reason for building the road. But since that time other reasons have developed The situation is similar in the West to that in connection with the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. This road was conceived and constructed for the purpose of serving a great clay belt in the north part of Ontario. Shortly after construction was started the original idea of the project was almost entirely lost sight of because of the fact that mineral discoveries of immense importance were made in that district. A similar situation exists in Northern Manitoba -and [Saskatchewan. While the original object of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, that of establishing a convenient- overseas route, is still very im-

portant, the construction of this road has brought to light the fact that in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan there is great mineral and other wealth which will place this part of the country on a par with any other part of Canada, if not in a better position. It has also brought to light the fact that the Hudson Bay itself may be and will be looked upon in the future as one of our national assets. Without taking up any further time, therefore, I wish simply to urge upon the minister and upon the Government as strongly as I can the desirability of incurring no further delay in. completing this road. Further delay means great loss, directly in money and indirectly in the development of the North country,-and the letter has already been delayed altogether too long. Therefore, on behalf of the West as well as on behalf of the whole of Canada, I urge that in connection with this national enterprise some work of construction be done this year; that at lea.st an additional mileage of rails be laid, which work will have exceedingly beneficial effects and besides serve as a guarantee of good faith on the part of the Government.
(Three members, Mr. Chisholm, Mr. La-fortune and Mr. Caldwell having risen at the same time):


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry, but I promised Mr. Chisholm two hours ago that I would see him next.
Mr. LAF'ORTUNE: I have only a question to put.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the minister forgotten to answer my question?


Georges Henri Boivin: We will let Mr. La-fortune put his question; then Mr. Caldwell will receive his answer; then Mr. Chisholm will have the floor.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: May I ask the minister if he has a few dollars to spend for the repair of the Lacliine lock bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that a walk is wanted across the locks. We are investigating that whole matter with a view to seeing whether we can give the accommodation along the lines suggested by the hon. member.


David Arthur Lafortune: It is very urgent.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I know.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister did not answer my question when he was dealing with the remarks made by other hon. gentlemen.


John Dowsley Reid: I will answer when my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm) gets through.


Alexander William Chisholm: My only reason for imposing upon the indulgence of the committee at this hour is to express my regret that the Government has not seen fit to carry out what I regard as a promise made last year, or at least what I expected would be done in view of the statements made at that time. I refer to the Inverness railway. I am like my hon. friend (Mr. Log-gie); the first spech I made in the House was in respect to an extension of railways in the county of Inverness, and I have ever since continued session after session to keep before the Government the urgency for railway extension. 1 had hoped that the Government would not fail to acquire this branch line in view of the great traffic possibilities which would result from the development of our immensely varied and valuable natural resources. The Government did make certain proposals to the owners of that road, or rather to the bondholders with a view to getting' control of it, but I thought at the time that the price offered was entirely too low. I realized the importance of this railway from the standpoint of traffic. I knew of the great wealth of western Cape Breton island and also how important it was that the railway passing through that zone should be in the hands of some concern that was not entirely concentrating its efforts on the development of its own properties. The Government I regarded as the proper party to own it. The Inverness railway was constructed by the Inverness Railway Company in 1897-98. They owned coal properties down there, but so far as I can see or so far as the people of Inverness can see, the company has never done anything to encourage the development of our resources or to extend its line beyond its coal mines but haul its own coal and discourage the development of -other coal mines. They have defeated any effort in this direction on the part of other industrial undertakings. You will marvel at the lack of development in my county-in view of the importance of coal, when I tell you that in that zone from Port Hood north there is estimated to be 1,300,000,000 tons of first-class bituminous coal. This estimate is the result of investigations made by qualified officers of both federal and provincial governments.
The Inverness railway probably owned about one-tenth of that coal. Two coal properties were operated on a small scale along the course of this railway, but owing to the policy of the Mackenzie and Mann

Company the development of these two coal properties was always retarded; they found it difficult to get reasonable freight rates and the necessary supply of cars to carry out the coal. In fact, the people engaged in these works had been treated in such a way by this company that they had to give up operations entirely. Two years ago the Port Hood Coal Company began operations again and are now carrying on business on a small scale. In the expectation that the 'Government would acquire this branch line they went on and developed the works two years ago, and now their output is in the vicinity of three or four hundred tons a day, and would increase this output to a larger extent if the road had been taken over by the Government. But the point I wish to make is that the Government should have acquired that road and thereby furnish independent transportation facilities to our people- placing .all concerns on the same footing and giving equal treatment to all. I venture to say that it is not in the class of any branch line mentioned in this House eince I have the honour of sitting here. It differs from the others in this respect; that it goes through the wealthiest portion of Canada for its area so far as natural resources are concerned. It is not necessary for me to detain the House by enumerating the various sources of natural wealth in that particular section of our country. I have done this on many occasions and placed in the hands of the Government data sufficient to show them my justification for my statements, and had the Government acquired this line, and extended it to Cheticamp, with connecting branch through East Lake pyrites district and Whycocomagh iron ore district and silica deposits to Orangedale, it would now be called upon to carry the product of at least five different coal mines besides the products of our farms, fisheries, and forests, and the output of the pyrites mines of East Lake Anslie and the iron and1 silica of Whycocomagh and vicinity. As it is now, I understand that the railway has been taken over by a new concern, who have acquired also the mines at Inverness which were the property of Mackenzie and Mann. I hope that the conditions resulting from the acquirement of this road by this new concern will not be as they were when it wae operated by the old company. The Government made a serious mistake in not acquiring the road, not only from the standpoint of the development of natural resources in that part of the country, but
also from the standpoint of the Government railways. I look upon this road as one of the moet important branch lines, if not the most important branch line in any part of Ganada. In saying this I have regard to the fact that the natural resources mentioned are there in abundance and are awaiting development. We have not there the harbour facilities that are enjoyed by other ports in the Maritime Provinces. In fact, we have no harbours along that coast that could be used for the carrying on of this trade in coal and other mineral deposits except Cheticamp. Accordingly, we are entirely dependent upon railways as a means of transportation. I want to say just a word with regard to the history of this Tecent transaction; there are some things about it that appear to be very shady indeed. Just a year ago, when the Government offered to take over the Inverness railway at a price estimated at about $2,500 a mile, there appeared in London a certain financier from this country who is said to have succeeded in acquiring $900,000 of the bonds of the Inverness railway. It is extraordinary that he should be in London at that time, evidently taking advantage of the fact that the Government saw fit to offer no more than $2,500 a mile for this railway, and that he immediately afterward succeeded in acquiring such vast quantities of these bonds. I do not want to be suspicious, but I fear there was some relationship between the Government's apparently voluntary offer and the appearance of this gentleman in London looking for Inverness railroad bonds.
But when one suffers, as we are suffering in that part of the country, from want of proper transportation facilities; when we recognize that we have the wealthiest part of Eastern Canada, and when we recognize further that we cannot get an extra foot of railway in the county of Inverness, we now become suspicious, and particularly so of circumstances of this kind. This gentleman came across; he acquired this quantity of these bonds, and when he arrived in Nova Scotia he made the statement that the road would not be sold to the Government. He evidently took advantage of the low offer of the Government to get the bonds at what he chose to offer. The fault that I find with the Government-I think I am justified in going that far-is that they did not close the bargain with the bondholders when the transaction was first initiated. What is exceedingly peculiar about the whole thing is this, that this gentleman, having acquired these bonds, came

line, the Or anged ale-Che tdea rn p, later on and show the great wealth of that part of the country. I am not going to blame the Government entirely for not taking over the road, but I am convinced their offer was entirely too low, the bondholders, for reasons I have stated, did not accept the Government's offer. The only fault I find with the Government is that they offered a price which I consider was ridiculously low, and which was not sufficient to induce the owners of the road to sell hut simply gave their friend an opportunity of acquiring the bonds cheaply. There was every justification in the world for the Government offering a substantial price, and every justification to expect good results from the acquisition and extension of this road. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there was no branch line in Western Canada that I know of that offered one-fourth the possibilities of this branch line. The Government knew that. I placed all the facts before them. I regret they did not take over the road, from the standpoint of the development of our natural resources and from the standpoint of the traffic to the Intercolonial railway. I hope, however, that the future has a little more brightness in store for us than we have experienced in the past.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I shall make one of the very briefest speeches I have ever made in this House, because the facts which I have to put before the minister can be confined in very narrow compass. I have no great condemnation for the minister of the Government in this matter except this, that we should not be called upon to discuss the very large and comprehensive question of railways at this stage of the session, and I hope that at the next session of Parliament the Minister of Railways will make a determined effort to have his railway business brought down in time to give us a fuller opportunity of dealing with it. As it is now, the session is in its expiring moments and we are in very hot weather. I wish to remind the minister that ini 1914 a resolution was accepted by him, Representing the Government at that time, in connection with railways in Western Canada. There are very few cases on record where a resolution moved by an Opposition member in this House ds accepted by the Government, but here is the record. On the 16th of March, 1914, I moved this resolution in the House:
That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial railway of Canada into the non-railway sections

of the (Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.
This resolution and t-he discussion on it will he found on page 1736 and following pages of Hansard of that year. Last year again I moved another resolution. I would emphasize that the resolution of the 16th of March, 1914, which I have just read, was accepted by the Government. During the war years I said1 nothing at all about railways. I kept absolutely quiet, 'but last year I moved this resolution:
Be it resolved, that in the opinion of this House the proposals of the said resolution of the 16'th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
That was moved) last year, and the question being put on the motion, it was resolved in the affirmative. The Government, therefore, at the second session last year, by accepting that resolution again approved of the resolution I moved in 1914. I am not going to weary the minister or the House with arguments because my arguments were accepted in 1914. The Government re-affirmed their acceptance of them last year, that is, that certain extensions of the Intercolonial railway should be made in the Maritime Provinces. I had particularly in mind the road into the county of Victoria which was surveyed in 1911. The contract for the road was let in 1911, but a change of Government took place and the Hon, Mr. Cochrane, the Minister of Railways after the change of Government, took [DOT] the ground that there were too many claims on the treasury for him to undertake this work at that time. Here is, I think, a unique position: This House committed itself on, two occasions to the necessities of the case which I have presented, and I am now asking the minister in justice to the Government and in justice to Parliament to carry out 'this resolution which has been twice accepted1 'by the House. The minister may not be able to make a start in my part of the country this year, hut at least he could check over the survey that has already been made in that county. The survey was made in 1911 and the contract was let. The records are in the department. I think in view of the record of Parliament in connection with this matter I am absolutely within my right when I ask the minister to check over the survey that has already been made in Victoria, and extend the survey further north in the county, to see what can be done and what results can he got from a survey of his own further north where the line is absolutely required.

The conditions in regard1 to a road in Victoria are getting better all the time. Pulp-wood is getting to toe an article of great value to the country now, and in the northern part of m-y county we have very extensive pulpwoods that are now without any rail connection at all. I think I am safe in saying that about $1,000,000 have been invested at Ste. Ann's Harbour in connection with pulpwood. They get their pulp out in the summer when vessels can come in, but they have no railway connection at all. There is an unlimited quantity of pulp up there. I need not remind the minister that the county of Victoria is a very old part of Canada, as old as any other part of the province of Nova 'Scotia, and some sections of that county are 110 to 120 miles away from the nearest railway. To an Ontario man that must seem an extraordinary condition, for you can hardly find a farm house in Ontario that is not within ten miles of some railway. When you consider that Victoria is older than Ontario and that some parts of the county are 110 to 120 miles away from a railway. I think the minister will understand that our great ambition is to get beiltelr railway accommodation. The only ambition I have in politics is that the county I have the honour to represent will have this great boon of railway connection before I go out of public life. I do trust that the minister, regardless of party affiliations and of what party politics may suggest, will carry out, not some new thing, tout what Parliament has committed itself to on two different occasions in the resolutions which have been accepted by the 'Government. It is at least, in as strong a position as any other section of the country could occupy so far as the record of the House is concerned.
At this hour of the night and at this stage of the session I am only reminding the minister of facts. He must realize that the necessity still exists, and the merits of the case are well known to him. I desire to say one word in regard to another matter which is also a live question. The minister will remember that he visited our town a few years ago and saw for himself the terminus of the Intercolonial railway connecting Canada with Newfoundland. That terminus at North Sydney is entirely inadequate for the traffic that has to be handled there. The minister made up his mind at that time that something had to be done, and plans were prepared. The piers there require extension and it is necessary that there should be more room for steamships. Facilities are needed for carrying out the traffic between
Canada and Newfoundland. Now, this is not something of a local character for the benefit of North Sydney. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of traffic is carried all the time between Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Winnipeg, and other parts of Canada, and Newfoundland. This traffic finds its outlet at the town of North Sydney, and any improvements effected there are not by any means purely for the advantage of that town. It is merely to maintain the facilities for carrying the trade between this country and Newfoundland. In order properly to handle that traffic we must have adequate facilities. What is happening now? The Newfoundland merchants, finding that they cannot get their goods from Canada by reason of the lack of these facilities, are getting them largely by water from the United States and in that way the Dominion of Canada is losing a very large trade and good money. Sometimes cars stand on the rail at North Sydney for two, and sometimes for three months, and the people in Newfoundland cannot get their goods because of this condition of affairs. Possibly the facilities are inadequate on the other side, but it is our duty to see that on this side we maintain a proper state of things. Then if there is any trouble on the Newfoundland side the people there will have to see to it themselves. One thing is perfectly clear to the minister, because he witnessed it himself, and that is that the facilities at the North Sydney terminus are absolutely inadequate. These are the only two matters I wish to bring to the notice of the minister, and I am doing so as briefly as I can. The his"tory of my advocacy of railway extension in my own county, and the necessary facilities for a terminus in order to handle tragic with Newfoundland, are two things which are well known to the minister and which I think should receive his attention at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. BUTTS:: When I first tried to catch your attention, Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak at any length but only to make reply to the remarks of an hon. member from a constituency in Manitoba relative to the Hudson Bay railway. Since then, however, certain other matters have come up in regard to which I think the facts as they really are ought to be placed before the House, late as the hour is and slim as is the attendance. I refer, first of all, to the remarks of my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Chisholm), in which he speaks of the great possibilities of Western Cape Breton, possibilities that he says, surpass those

of any other part of the Dominion of Canada. I do not desire even to attempt to minimize the greatness of those prospects. As a matter of fact, who are the ones that have minimized them? Has it not been the representatives of the county of Inverness themselves? I remember very well, and I think every one in Nova Scotia remembers, the session of the local House, when myself and my colleague from Cape Breton brought about the investigation into the Port Hood coal mine, and the representatives of Inverness county were the men that stood behind the Government and behind the Government experts-God save the mark !- when they tried to prove that the Port Hood mine had been flooded from the Atlantic ocean and was no longer any good. Every mining expert in Nova Scotia, *when the report was issued, laughed at it, and . those who did not laugh said they wondered that any mining expert would risk his reputation in signing the report that was made. So that if this Government or if this Government's predecessor has not treated the mines of Inverness as the commonalty of Inverness would wish, who is to blame? Why, no one but the representatives of Inverness, the friends of my hon. friend, and the present local government of Nova Scotia. I was there throughout the whole of the investigation and I know all about it. The Port Hood mines and the Mabou mines are on record in Nova Scotia, and if that record has been sullied so that they cannot float bonds or stocks or anything else in the markets of the world then Inverness has Inverness to blame; and a share of that blame falls to the present .government of Nova Scotia and its inexpert and incapable mining officials. Go into Nova Scotia, and any little school boy will tell you about the mines of Inverness. They all know them; they know them from the records of their own representatives in Parliament; they know them from the records of the present local government of Nova Scotia; they know them from the debates of the Parliament of Nova 'Scotia,- all at their own instigation, for their own political aggrandizement. And if to-day Inverness suffers she suffers at the hands of her own Grit politicians Now, there is no need for me to follow this very much further; I have placed the plain blunt facts before the country. Had I been representing Inverness, I would never have gone, for the sake of political aggrandizement, so far as to ruin the name of the coal deposits of that place and bring them into disrepute before the world as has been done by the ward heelers of Inverness.
[Mr. Butta-
The hon. member for Gape Breton (Mir. McKenzie) has spoken about the Newfoundland problem. The Newfoundland problem is as clear as the noonday sun. One of the things that I have thought about for years is the rounding out of British North America by bringing into Confederation the colony of Newfoundland. The only way of doing that is by the largest kind of encouragement in trade matters .between Canada and Newfoundland. For a number of years-in fact for as long as I can remember-there has been little encouragement. The Newfoundland people extended a road away into the wilderness from Port au Basque and again out of the wilderness to St. Johns and Placentia. The result was that trade could not flourish. It was a narrow gauge road and cars have been known in the month of November to be blown off the rails. That may seem to be a laughable expression but it is absolutely true. Iln the last winter commercial men were known to be compelled to leave the trains and to trek it over the snowbanks where the railway was absolutely buried to a depth of from 13 to 15 feet and walk between fifty and sixty miles to Port au Basque to get the boat to take them to Sydney harbour, there to connect with the Intercolonial railway. That is a matter of absolute record; it is true. We must encourage trade with Newfoundland in the hope that in the near future, or even in the distant future, Newfoundland may find it to her advantage, and we may find it to our advantage, to- round out the Confederation and make a perfect and complete British North America.
The only way in the world to do that is to cut out the Keid-Newfoundland company absolutely. 'The Beid-NewfoundLand company had two nice boats when the war broke out. They had the second Bruce and another-two absolutely beautiful boats, designed and built purposely for navigation in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and capable of going through any amount of ice that the North Atlantic, within reasonable limits, knows. The Reid-Newfoundland company, in their selfishness, as soon as the war broke out and they found they were able to make a large profit on these boats, sold them to the Russian Government, delivered them at Archangel and left this traffic between Canada and Newfoundland to go to the bow-wows. 'Such a concern as that is not safe for us to deal with, and therefore I say Canada should endeavour to bring about what many Canadians dream of as being the consummation of Confederation', the annexation, or coming into Con-

*federation, of the Ancient Colony. It is only by establishing a line of steamships between Sydney harbour and St. Johns that it can be done. Since I last spoke upon this matter I have been told that the Government is likely to do that, and I would say that the sooner they do it the sooner they will, have done a fine work for Canada and for Newfoundland and will have taken one step at least in the direction of the Confederation of British North America.
Now I come to the question of the Hudson Bay railway. I know perfectly well that it is not as popular a question to deal with as the unification of British North America. I know it cannot be, because I am absolutely incapable of defending the Hudson Bay project as far as it has gone. People living out in the Northwest and) not understanding the conditions as. they are on the Atlantic seaboard1, are not the best judges. They often look at a map. Quebec is shown in one colour, Ontario in another, and so on; the water is always blue on the map, but it is not always blue when you get into a ship. Hudson bay presents the most difficult piece of navigation on this entire hemisphere from the north to the south pole and from the meridian that passes through Greenwich right around the world and back to Greenwich again. We have photographs down in our country, andi if any one questions it he can come right down to Nova Scotia and see them in the Nova 'Scotia Steel and Coal Company's office. At North Sydney, we have a ship called the Bonaventure. That ship was built purposely as a trading ship and to be used in the winter on the sealing grounds. She was built for navigation in high latitudes, and she is shown in a photograph in the Hudson's bay at the entrance to James bay. There she is on the 12th of August according to a photographic picture. Her master was Captain Couch, a well-known Newfoundland commander. There she is, and in the ice she does not look like a ship at all but like a jolly boat. Are you going to ship your wheat through that ice? Do you wheat growers of the West think it is reasonable to ask this country to expend millions of dollars to build a railroad from Le Pas to the Hudson bay, there to put your wheat on board of ships-if you can get them at the bay, and I do not believe you can-but granted you could get them there, are you going to send your w'heat to Hudson bay and put it on board ships that are not able to take it out? These are the conditions. Remember, when you see the 270
blue on the map that blue does not always represent water. Icebergs may be there, floating ice may be there, and you have to go many degrees north of that before you get out of Hudson strait. And when you get to Hudson strait, no matter what day of the year it may be-I care not what day it is-you have to hug the shore on the north when the ice is on the south side of the strait, and when the ice is on the north shore of the strait then you have to hug the southern shore. Do you suppose for one moment that Lloyds or any other insurance company in the world, is going to give insurance to the average steamer capable of carrying wheat across the ocean? Do you suppose for one moment they are going to insure those ships? Yes, they might if you gave them a fifty-fifty agreement on it. In that case they might take even chances with you, but in the long run you will find they will not do it with the class of ships that carry wheat. They may do it with ships like the Bonaventure and the Bruce, and other vessels of that kind, but they will not insure such ships as would make it profitable for the wheat growers of the West to ship their wheat by way of Hudson bay. I say therefore that if the Minister of Railways should, right here and now, put his foot down and declare, "No more money for Hudson bay," I will stand behind him and I will say, "Hear, hear."


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: Before the minister replies I want to say a word or two regarding this important matter of transportation. I would have spoken earlier in the evening but many members, from different parts of Canada, were anxious to put themselves on record1, and I held back in order to allow them to do so. Now I want to support the hon. member from King's (Mr. Mclsaac) who dealt so eloquently upon the transportation problem as it affects the province which we both represent here. In the past the maintenance of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland has been an open sore as between the people of our province and the Dominion Government. I do not wish to detain the committee by rehearsing the various stages through which this question has passed since we entered Confederation; but I think it is always opportune to remind hon. gentlemen that when we did so, it was with the explicit and straight agreement that continuous steam communication should be kept up between the island of Prince Edward and the mainland. The efforts of the

There is another point with regard to the standardization of the railway that I want to bring to the attention of the minister: it is with reference to labour conditions in Prince Edward Island. Since the armistice and demobilization several of our soldiers have returned to the province. We are not fortunate enough to have any manufacturing centres; our chief industries are agriculture and fishing, and when our boys came back from the war it was harder to assimilate them into civil life than was the case ih other parts of Canada where labour was in great demand. As a result of that I want to appeal to the minister that our boys were looking forward during the present summer, as they had enjoyed in the summer in 1919, to the privilege of working upon the railroad and doing this new work, thereby getting employment that they could not otherwise get in the province in which they were born and from which they went to serve their country. On March 27, I received this telegram:
Earnestly request you exert every effort toward having estimates include appropriation widening gauge. Means employment of 300 returned soldiers. Government are providing labour by means of public works in all other provinces. Island returned men ask your co-operation in preventing injustice which will necessitate returned men leaving this province to obtain work.



[Stage Direction]
Provincial Secretary, G.W.V.A., P.E.I.
That was the condition that obtained on the 27th March, and when the Minister of Railways stated on the 30th March, that the work of standardizing the railway was not to be gone on with this year, that announcement came as a severe jolt to returned men who had received work on this during the previous year and who were looking forward to the same thing during the coming summer, when they could assist their parents on the farms or in the fishing boats during the spring season, and in the summer season could serve the railways in providing the labour which was necessary to carry on this work. This was a very opportune time for the Government to do that work, and by so doing they wou'd be serving two purposes instead of only one. 1 think I have put my case about as clearly as I need to.
There is just one other thing which I want to bring to the attention of the minister. In view of the tiansitory and uncertain conditions of our transportation system in Prince Edward Island at the present time, and in view of the reorganization that is necessary in taking over the Grand Trunk and making it a part of the Canadian Na-

tional system, I want to ask the minister to consider the proposition of appointing from Prince Edward Island at least one man upon the Board of Management of the Canadian National railways. In view of the condition that we are in at the present time, 1 do not think it is too much to ask that at least one person who knows local conditions that obtain in that province should be upon that board. I leave this as a last word with the Minister of Railways, and I know he will bear it in mind, so that when reorganization takes place, all the provinces will be represented upon that board.	' *
John Dowsley Reid: I feel that I should
answer some of the questions that have been put to me by different members who have spoken this evening. The hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Mc'lsaac), and the hon. member for Queen's, P. E. I. (Mr. Sinclair), have spoken with reference to the railway situation on Prince Edward Island. I understand they are asking that the balance of the railways on Prince Edward Island should be standardized and also that another ferry should be provided. I feel that I could not possibly hold out any encouragement for either of these two things being proceeded with during the present year. The necessity for a second ferry could hardly, I think, be justified. My hon. friend says that we should build another ferry to keep in reserve in case anything happens to the present ferry. I believe the present ferry can do all that is required, and if it is necessary to have another ferry, the hon. gentleman knows the Scotia .that used to run to Mulgrave, fitted up so that she could take the place of the ferry in case of accident and ferry cars between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


John Ewen Sinclair: She
would not do in the winter time when there is ice in the channel.


John Dowsley Reid: There might be times
when she would be delayed on account of ice, but she would be used only in case of an emergency or something happening to the other steamer when we might have to go back to the former system for a short time and run the steamer between Charlottetown and Pictou.


John Ewen Sinclair: If you go back to that system, you would have no boat.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Albert James Smith Copp: I think it Was.


John Dowsley Reid: Whether it was or not, it is not right that a private car should be attached to the- rear end of a train carrying an observation- car. If it is a regular Pullman, it is different. As a rule the railways put the private -car next to the baggage, so- -that it does not interfere- with the travel-

ling public. I .am glad the hon. member has brought that to my attention, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the management. A private car must certainly take second place to the observation ear. I trust my bom. 'friend will bring any oomipiaint oi that kind to my attention at once. He .also referred to the trains of Montreal not connecting. That is correct. It occurred through an error made by a clerk in confusing daylight saving with standard time in drawing up the time table. On the 27tli of this month, the new time table will come out .and the mistake will he rectified. It could not very well be rectified before, because the time tables bad all been printed and published. At all events, so far as the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern are concerned that grievance will noit exist in the future.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to make an explanation. 1 had intended to say that I had a conversation with the Deputy Minister and he explained the situation to me in that way. I quite appreciate it.


John Dowsley Reid: A criticism of that kind is quite just and fair, and any errors of that kind should be brought to the attention of the Government in order that they may be rectified.
The hon. member also referred to the loss of a grip by a passenger, and his having to correspond with Toronto. His criticism, broadly speaking, was that we should have at Moncton some official with greater powers than any we have there at present. Of course, every great system must have a head office. I was under the impression that the present General Superintendent, Mr. L. S. Brown, is General -Superintendent for the whole system. I understood that he could do almost anything in connection with the general operation of the road, and complaints of that kind, ll think, should go to Moncton.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I wrote to Moncton but the letter was. forwarded to Toronto.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose he would
have to make a report to Toronto in any case. That was also a matter for fair criticism, and I shall see whether anything can be done to make the adjustment of these grievances easier.
The hon. .member also referred to Mr. Carvill. Perhaps the hon. member would take the matter up with Mr. 'Carvill and see whether the statements I have made would not he satisfactory. If a commissioner were

to go to St. John he would require evidence to be taken from the General Manager and the whole staff. It would take time to have an investigation. If a commissioner did go, it would have to be distinctly understood that it would only be for the purpose of clearing him from the charge of being implicated] in the theft.


Albert James Smith Copp: That's all he asks for.


John Dowsley Reid: I could not possibly
agree on any terms to an investigation as to carelessness and so on, with a view" to reinstating him. I have great sympathy with any man with a family, who is- lying under a charge, or who feels that his reputation has been injured. A man's, reputation is really what he prizes most. No amount of money is to be compared with a man's reputation, and it is only on that, ground an investigation could be considered. I have tried, to do all I can publicly, by putting a statement on Hansard, .to satisfy the people of .St-. John and Mr. Carvill and his family. I will try and consider the other request the hon. member has made.
My hon, friend also referred to the Employee's Pension, Fund. That is a very important matter. I agree that the pensions are very small. Some months ago I had the staff commence to draw up a pension act applicable to the whole system. They aTe all different now, but when we get them all under cne system it should work more satisfactorily than having three or four different systems. If I interfered at the present time with the Pension Act it might impede a proper final adjustment and for that reason we have had to delay for a short, time any action in the matter. I am, however, endeavouring to get these men a higher pension, and personally II am of the opinion that they should receive more than, they are getting. I think the matter should be adjusted at the earliest possible moment, and if the instructions I have given are followed *cur, this should be possible before we meet *next session.
The hon. member for Carleton, N. B. (Mr. Caldwell) asked a question in regard to the running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway from Westville to St. John. To get running rights over that road the St. John Valley and Quebec railway would have to make application to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have not taken this matter up with Mr. Hanna, but they would have to make application, and no doubt Mr. Hanna would assist them in any way he possibly could. I have not the agreement be-

fore me and at the moment I cannot remember what the arrangement, was with reference to the running rights over that road. While Mr. Cochrane was absent, as Acting Minister I entered into an arrangement with the Quebec Government to run over that road instead of building a road into St. John paralleling from Westv-ille in. The hon. member states that it would cost $100,000 but I do not see how it could cost so much. This is a matter that the New Brunswick and the Dominion Governments would have to dispose of by some mutual agreement. In .the Supplementary Estimates, which contain large items in connection with the railways, I shall have full information at my disposal and shall be able to give to my hon. friend more details than I can to-night. If he will let the matter stand until then I will try to answer him to better advantage than I can this evening.
The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) made some remarks in reference to the Inverness railway. I do not blame him for regretting the fact that the Government have not taken over that railway. There was an understanding last year that we would take over all these railways in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, at a certain rate per mile. I took this matter up with the bondholders, or the representatives of the bondholders, and it v/as agreed that they should get $150,000 for that railway. The agreement was signed and we passed an Order in Council, 'but what happened I cannot tell. However, the hon. *member, I think, will agree that I could not do more than I did. The parties having agreed on the price, it was not my fault that the agreement was not consummated, although I admit that it will probably 'be a serious thing for that part of the country.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) referred to branch lines in the county of Victoria. We are getting some more Tailway work done in Cape Breton. In the Supplementary Estimates there will be an item to pay for the Cape Breton road which runs to St. Peter's, this being commonly known as the Webb Road. At one time there was a scheme to project that road further along to Bras d'Or Lakes, but I do not think that is where the hon. member referred to. I agree with him that there should be extensions in the lower provinces-, and I shall take up the question with the railway management to see what the situation is and ascertain to what extent the people in these localities can be served by extensions of railways. I agree that while we are constructing railways in the West we should not overlook other parts of the country where roads are necessary.
Now, may I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, in view of the fact that we have had a thorough discussion of the whole railway situation, and as there are large items in the Supplementary Estimates in connection with which the whole question can be brought up again, that they allow these items to pass at the present juncture. When the Supplementary Estimates are up I shall have no objection whatever to answering any questions hon. members may desire to put in connection with the railways or canals. The hour is getting rather late, and we might pass the items in the Main Estimates, and1 on the Supplementary Estimates there will be ample opportunity for hon. members to discuss any questions relative to canals or railways.


Jacques Bureau: Then, as I understand
the minister, there is a distinct understanding that on the Supplementary Estimates the whole matter may be gone over again.


John Dowsley Reid: Everything may be
gone over. I have items on canal's and railways and I shall have no objection, as has been done this evening, to answering any -questions hon. gentlemen may ask with reference to railways and canals.


Frank S. Cahill: These agreements may
be all right to those who make them, but I have certain questions which I desire to submit to the minister and I want to ask them on the Main Estimates and not on the Supplementary Estimates, which will come up on the -last night.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I have no
objection to going on now, but-


Frank S. Cahill: I admit that the hour is
rather late. Two o'clock in the morning is an extraordinary time for us to be discussing important matters such as these; but I have questions I desire to ask.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will have an opportunity to ask questions on the Supplementary Estimates.


Frank S. Cahill: I think the minister could very well Teport progress and take up the Estimates to-morrow.


John Dowsley Reid: On the Supplementary Estimates my hon. friend can ask the questions which he desires to submit as well as on these Estimates, and we could make

some progress to-night. II hon. members let this pass it does not deprive them of the opportunity of asking any questions which they have in mind. The hon. member will have all the time he desires and will have plenty of opportunity when the other Estimates come up, and I see no reason for his objecting to letting this go through tonight. When the Supplementary Estimates come up his right to ask questions will be unimpaired.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: I do not wish
to interfere with the agreement of the minister with the committee but I have two or three questions which I desire to ask and it is just possible I may not be here when the Supplementary Estimates are under consideration. I desire to ask the minister a question in regard to the Brudenheim branch. We had [DOT]a promise last year in regard to this branch line but when the Estimates came down we found that no provision had been made for it. It will be remembered that the Canadian Pacific had applied for a charter to parallel this line and it was agreed that they would give support to the Canadian National railways and that the line would be completed last summer. There was nothing done about it and there has been nothing done yet. When the minister's Estimates were before the House on a former occasion he said that he would give the matter further consideration and that he would be able to give me an answer when his Estimates were again up for consideration. I would ask him if he has given it that consideration and if he can do anything this year. I might refresh his memory by saying that there are only thirty miles altogether and as he knows it would be a great advantage not only to the settler but to the railway as well. On that section of the line they are drawing ballast for sixty or seventy miles as far up as Edmonton. This projected branch has any amount of available ballast within six or seven miles of the mainland. The minister might get that information from his engineers and other members of his staff.
There is another matter to which I would like to call the attention of the minister and that is that the people particularly in the district east of Edmonton suffered very greatly last year from lack of equipment. They were unable to get their grain out, there was no way of clearing the elevators. As a result there was congestion in the elevators from Edmonton east and spring came before they could get that equipment.

The grain is still there and the season has been so wet that they could not haul it out. The minister talks about moving coal from the West but if he can get the equipment his first duty is to move the grain. A large portion of the grain is yet with the farmers. They are unable to get it out as they have been too busy putting in their spring crops and they have suffered great hardships.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that not the line that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern between them are to build?
.Mr. WHITE (Victoria): Exactly.


John Dowsley Reid: I am afraid that, as far as I can remember just now, there is nothing in the Estimates for that work. We had arranged in the committee that one company was to build one part and another company another, but I have not anything in the Estimates during the present year. In reference to the equipment for grain. I agree that grain must come ahead of everything else in so far as equipment is concerned. This is one reason why I have hesitated to ask for coal or box cars. I am asking for all the equipment this year that is practicable for wheat business.


Frank S. Cahill: I know the minister wants to be reasonable, and if we were to pass everything but item 127, with the understanding that we could ask any question on that item we might allow the Estimates to pass.


John Dowsley Reid: I have several large
items in the Supplementary Estimates which will be laid on the Table to-night. There is an item' of $25,000,000 for the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern railways. There are items for the Canadian National railways construction, canal estimates, purchases for railways, etc. I think any one of these items would cover everything that the hon. gentleman has mentioned. If I could see that it would make any difference I would not object at all, but I would ask the hon. member, so long as it does not interfere with his position, to allow these Estimates to pass.


Frank S. Cahill: But it does interfere with my position.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As I may not be here when the Supplementary Estimates are taken up, I would ask the minister to take a note of my question and put the answer on Hansard.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to find out who the tenderers are, how the contracts are let and

to whom they are let. I want to know the number of ties they bought in 1919 and what they paid for them.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Frank S. Cahill: Could the minister give
me any information about the coal contracts?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I have the details here, but it would take a long time to read them.


Frank S. Cahill: I have no doubt the details could be placed on Hansard without their being read, if you would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to that course being pursued.


John Dowsley Reid: The information I have here occupies about five pages. Does the hon. member wish it placed on Hansard?


Frank S. Cahill: Yes, if you get the unanimous consent of the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sure that if the putting of these documents on Hansard would enable us to dispose of the Railway Estimates to-night the committee will give its unanimous consent. I have therefore much pleasure in asking the committee for unanimous consent in order to place on Hansard the lists supplied by the minister.
The committee gave unanimous consent and the documents were presented, as follows:


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Steam Coal Contracts 1919-20.

[Stage Direction]
Order
No.
Company.
1919.
Tonnage.
Price.
Tonnage.
85 80
88
90
92
94
96
98
99 100 102 113
Dominion Coal Co.
Nova Scotia Steel & Coal.
Indian Cove Coal Co	
Bras D'Or Coal Co	
Anglo Coal Co	
Inverness Ry. & Coal Co..
Port Hood Collieries....
Greenwood Coal Co	
Milford Coal Mining Co...
Acadia Coal Co	
Intercolonial Coal Mining..
Dominion Coal Co	
Maritime Coal, Ry. & P. Co.
Minudie Coal Co	
Twin Seam Coal Co	
Emerson Coal Co	
W. L. Barnes	
Central Coal Co	
Spurgeon Gammon	
Lanark Coal Co	
Chimney Corner Coal Co.
100,000
75.000
7.000
7.000
6.000
25.000
25.000
50.000
35.000
225.000
150.000
125.000
135.000
12.000 10,000 10,000
[Stage Direction]
10,000
[Stage Direction]
4.35	f.
4.35
4.35 6.25 f.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00 5.20
5.00 5.30 5.15
,25c.
5.00	f, .25c.
5.00	f.
4.75
5.00
4.75
5.00
5.00
o.b. Sydney	
extra for sc. coal, o.b. Sydney Mines.
o.b. als. dock P.E.I. Inverness Jet_______
Greenwood...
Coalburn....
Stellarton..
Westville...
Pietou Hbr... Springhill Jet. extra for sc.
o.b. Maccan	
extra for sc. o.b. Maccan	
New Glasgow.
1,007,839
400.000
125.000
50.000
25.000
2,000
60,100
50.000
30.000
125.000
125.000
125,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
1,157,000
$6.00 f.o.b.
5.50	"
5.35	"
5.75	"
7.40	"
5.00	"
6.00	"
5.25	"
5.75	"
5.65	"
5.65
5.50
5.50
5.25
7.40
1920.
Price.
Sydney and Springhill. Sydney Mines.
U
Souris or Georgetown. Mine.
Cars tracks.
Coalburn.
Stellarton.
Westville.
Maccan.
t(
<<
Stellarton. Dock Souris.
4252	COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Steam Coal Contracts.

[Stage Direction]
Order
No.
Company.
1919.
Tonnage.
Price.
1920.
Tonnage.
Price.
53
55
56 60
64
68 69 71
80
173
143
Empire Coal Co....
A. Bade Co., Ltd.... Canadian Import Co.
Century Coal Co...
Fielder-Davis Fuel Co.
Geo. Hall Coal Co....
F. A. Fish	
Geo. Hall Coal Co....
Canadian Coal Co	
Sterling Coal Co	
Valley Camp Coal Co. Elias Rogers Co., Ltd.
E. L. Hedstrom	
Standard Fuel Co	
Rogers Alan	
Pittsburg & Bessemer.
W. H. Bradford	
Warren Collieries, Ltd	
Dunlop Coal Co	
C. W. Young	
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.
8,500
50.000
125.000
100.000
50.000 25,000 25 cars
10.000
10,000
50.000
30.000 8,000 2,000
$5.40 cars our rails	
1.95	f.o.b. Mines	
2.17	"	" taking	
Frt. rate $2.59 from Penn. Dist. to Mtl. Frt. rate $2.59 from Clearfield Dist to Mtl	
1.95	f.o.b. Mines	
1.95	" Morgantown Dist	
5.00	" tracks Toronto	
1.95	" port taking rate of $2.81 to Montreal.
2.00	f.o.b. Mines 1.85 1.90
2.00 2.60 2.61
Mines	
Morgantown. Mines	
469,000
100,000 100,000 100,000
30,000
12,500 100 cars 100 " 100 "
40.000
50.000
50.000 100,000 100,000
682,500
$3.45 f.o.b. Mines. 3.40	"
3.60	"	"
3.50
4.30
2.80
2.70
3.50
3.40
3.80
3.85
4.25
3.25
Shipments in Ontario.
2
5
Imperial Munitions Bd..
U	it
Dept. Militia & Defense Empire Coal Co	
45,000
5,000
2,347
$5.05 R-M British Chemical Works...
5.30 Lp	
3.50	in piles Camp Mohawk	
3.50	"	" Rathburn andDeseron
to
52,347
14.000
14.000
5.75 Little Current Dk.

[Stage Direction]
Steam Coal Contracts, 1919-20.

[Stage Direction]
Order
No.
Company.
1919.
Tonnage.
Price.
1920.
Tonnage.
Price.
29
32 37
58 62
73
Geo. Hall Coal Co	
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal. Canadian Coal Co	
Geo. Hall Coal Co	
Bessemer & Pittsburg Coal Co.
Sterling Coal Co	
M. A. Hanna Coal Co	
Canadian Import Co	
W. H. Bradford (Smokeless)...
Pursglove Maher Coal Co	
Commercial Coal & Supply Co.
Empire Coal Co	
Ayers A. L	
25.000
200,000
40.000
10.000 10,000
25.000
25.000
25.000
10.000 20,000
[Stage Direction]
als. dock Quebec	
f.o.b. vsl. L. E. Ports.
Hearst	
Oba	
Chicoutimi	
vsl. L.E. ports...
dock Levis	
b. vsl. L. E. Ports..
390,000
300.000
100.000
$4.83 vsl. L. Erie.
8.75 f.o.b. cars Hearst.
15.000
25.000
25,000
25,000
100,000
50,000
100,000
8.45
9.00
5.33
4.83
6.68
3.87
5.28
4.83
Oba.
" Chicoutimi. " L. Erie.
L. Erie.
vsl. Lorain.
" L. Erie.
740,000
Coal Purchased Alongside Dock, Fort William.
30		400,000		400,000	4.83 vsl. L. E. plus $1.56 to Ft. William
			4.92 " " 			
				50,000	6.55 als. Dk. Ft. William.
					
		400,000		450,000

[Stage Direction]
Steam Coal Contracts.

[Stage Direction]
Order
No.
Company.
1919.
Tonnage.
Price.
1920.
Tonnage.
Price.
Order placed in 1918 . 110 116
118 120 121 122 123
Northern Coal & Dock Co.
Northern Coal & Dock Co____
Great Lakes Coal & Dock Co.
Clarkson Coal & Dock Co....
Western Coal Co	
Mostanina Coal Co	
Lehigh Valley Coal Co	
Lehigh Valley Coal Co	
Carnegie Dock & Fuel Co....
75,000
8,000
$5.93 f.o.b. cars, Duluth. 4.65 "	"
83,000
15.000
20.000 10,000
2,500
50,000
7.000
2.000
5,000
111,500
$5.93 f.o.b., Duluth.
6.25
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.93
Superior.
Duluth, or Ft. Wm.
Duluth or Superior. Duluth.

[Stage Direction]
Steam Coal Contracts 1919-20.

[Stage Direction]
Order
No.
Company.
Tonnage.
Price.
1920.
Tonnage.
Price.
106
Oliphant Munson Collieries, Ltd.
Brazeau Collieries....
Blue Diamond Coal Co. Coal Sellers	
Great West Coal Co	
Canadian Western Fuel Co.
West Canadian Collieries__
Cadomin Coal Co	
McGiilivray Creek Coal Co.
Manitoba & Saskatchewan Coal Co.
Great West Coal Co	
Souris Coal Sales	
500-1,000 tons per [DOT]week. 200,000 100,000
23.000
12.000
60,000 lump 2,000 nut 750 pea 50,000
$3.30 f.o.b. Coalspur, Alta.
to
$3.85	"	Nordegg	4.35	"	Brule, inc. 34c. Dec. 1...3.12J	"	Drumheller. Increased
$3.52| Dec. 1.
2.90 for i size. $2.37! for stove size, creased 40c. per ton Dec. 1.
$6.70 for cars barges, Nanaimo	
6.20 " "	
5.70	"	"		
4.05 net ton increased to $4.39 Dec, 1-19.
In-
447,750
1,000
1,000
$2.00 f.o.b. cars Bienfait.
500.000
175.000
45.000
100,000
40.000
860,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
$4.10 Brazeau. 4.60 Brule.
$4.35 mines.
3.95 f.o.b. mines. 4.35
$2.50 f.o.b. Bienfait.
2.50	"
2.50	"	"
Frank S. Cahill: Would the minister tell me now aboult the insurance company?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a matter I would rather discuss (with my hon. friend than disclose the information (here. It is not, I may say, a question of merely giving information to some particular firm. After discussing the matter with the officials of the company I came to the conclusion that if the hon. member understood the situation he would recognize it would be hardly fair to put the information on Hansard. If there is any particular matter that he wants information about I would be glad to give it to him but I think that in the public interest and in the interest of the railway itself he will scarcely press to have all the detail's placed on Hansard.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister say that he will give me what information he has pertaining to the railway?


John Dowsley Reid: I will say this to the hon. member; I will give him any information I have in my office that I feel I would be justified in giving. My hon. friend will observe from the information I have given to-night that I am willing to. go as far as I possibly can to meat h:,s wishes. He need not hesitate at all to ask me for any additional information that he wants. If I cannot give it to him I think he will be satisfied that I have good reason for not doing so.


Frank S. Cahill: I think the minister is usually inclined to give more information when we are considering his Estimates than he is at almost any other period. Although we are sitting at an unreasonable hour, members are only doing .their duty in asking the minister 'question's of this kind in order to inform themselves as to the conditions on the Government railway system.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not objecting, that is right.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister will furnish me with the information I think I should have, I have no wish to delay the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: Very (well, I will give it as far as I can.


Frank S. Cahill: When we are passing so many millions of Railway Estimates and there is this keen interest in the country on the railway question the people will surely expect us to obtain some of the details as to where the money is going.


John Dowsley Reid: Perfectly right.


Frank S. Cahill: I think we should have some information about the insurance, and there are a few other matters I would like to ask (the minister about. If he will agree to give me the information I will furnish him with a list of questions I want answered, and he may supply the data the next time his Estimates are under consideration.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be glad to give the hon. member any information that I can, that is (as regards the fiscal year which has closed. I think that is what the hon. member wishes-not anything in reference to any contract that is in effect at the present time.
Resolutions reported.


FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1920-21.
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1921, was presented by Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, read by Mr. Speaker to 'the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.
On motion of right hon. Mr. Doherty the House returned to the order: " First Reading of Senate Bills."

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 207 (from the Senate) for the relief of Charles Henry Foster.
Bill No. 208 (from the Senate) for the relief bf Frank Oo-x.
Bill No. 209 (from the Senate) for the relief of Joseph DubA
Bill No. 210 (from the Senate) for the relief of John Donnelly.
On Motion of right hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 2.25 a.m. (Saturday).
Saturday, June 26, 1920.